Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. David Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation measure. It has been through the Joint Consolidation Committee, which has certified it to be such. Unless the House wishes me to explain the purpose of the Bill, I shall move the Second Reading virtually formally.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I have to start by asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether what I hope to say will be in order. It concerns drainage and the Anglian Water Authority, which has a Private Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his courtesy in putting it that way, but he may not discuss the content of the Bill. He may discuss only whether it should be consolidated. It is a narrow area.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall not try.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.8 a.m.

Dr. Gerald Vaughan: We would like to discuss some of the intentions of this Bill, albeit briefly, because it has the support of all the medical bodies. I know from conversations which I have had with them that they are extremely anxious to have the changes which the Bill will bring about.
The Bill is a natural development of the present voluntary arrangements which many general practitioners undertake in their own time or in the training programmes which are available. They do this voluntarily because they see the need for this kind of training.
The Bill will make a major change in the history of general practice. The days when any doctor could put up his plate as a senior practitioner and wait for customers to arrive will be over.
We are happy to support the aims of the Bill. There is no significant difference of view between the two major parties. As a general comment, while we agree about the purpose of the Bill, we do not agree entirely with the method which has been adopted by the Government. We think that far too much has


been left to be decided by future consultations. That means to be decided by regulations to be laid by the Minister. In effect, we are being asked to give the Minister a blank cheque or a blank prescription and he will fill in the details of the medicine later. We think that, however good the cause, this is not the right way to set about it.
In June, the Government said that they were having consultations with a large number of bodies. In fact, in another place they said that there were so many bodies with whom they were having talks that they could not list them all at that time. We have been told this again since, but we have never been told whom these bodies represented. When questioned about women, for example, it quickly became clear that none of the major women's organisations at that time had been consulted. One question to which we would like an answer today is: has the Minister now consulted the women's organisations? If so, which organisations, and what did they have to say about the Bill?
We should like to know a great deal more about the position as regards Europe. Shall we be able in this country to make this vocational training mandatory for all general practitioners? Or are we, as some people are telling us, in a position in which a doctor can still come from another part of Europe from the Common Market and practise here as and when he pleases because he has come in from outside the country? We have been told that this may be the position. I think that the Minister should tell us exactly where we stand.
There is, also, the question of appeals In another place the Government said that there would be "a body", a single body, but that they did not at that stage know which body. In the debate in the Second Reading Committee, the Minister said that there would be "several bodies". He used the plural and he said that they would be professional bodies set up after consultation with the medical profession.
Can the Minister tell us now what kind of bodies these will be, who will serve on them and to whom they will be responsible? For example, will a person have a right of appeal beyond whatever this body is to the Secretary of State? Will they be subject to the rules of the

Council of Tribunals? Will they be subject to inquiry by the Health Commissioner, the Ombudsman? We would see these as important safeguards for a doctor who does not feel that he has been properly and fairly treated.
Finally, there is the question of the cost. The Minister has told us that the total cost of all this would be £8½ million. He justified that by saying that it would be only £1 million more than the expected cost of the vocational training voluntary schemes which are now in operation, but that was a projection of the costs today on into 1980. It was based on the assumption that the same increases in the number of people applying would continue. In fact, there is not a true argument. We should have liked to know the actual cost today and what will be the increasing cost when the Bill is passed—as we all hope it will be.
With those very few words, I should like to say again that there is no material measure of difference between the two major parties on this matter. If the Minister will answer those questions, we shall be very pleased to give the Bill our full support.

11.12 a.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Third Reading of the Bill, having watched its progress in another place and through this House with interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has just said, there are still a large number of unanswered questions. It is interesting to trace that at each debate we have asked the same questions and at each debate the Minister has been forced to go away to have another look. We hope that he has managed to find some answers during the Summer Recess.
I am concerned about three areas in this legislation. First, we have, in the present arrangements for vocational training, a requirement that there is a minimum of two six-month periods spent in a hospital within certain specialties. However, I have been unable to find from any source a mention of the problems of mental illness and mental handicap in those specialties which are listed for those two six-month pre-registration hospital periods.
The House will be aware of the increase in mental illness in Britain over the


last decade. It is absolutely vital, with some 600,000 people receiving psychiatric help every year, that in vocational training more attention is paid to this particular specialty in medicine. Every survey that we look at indicates this same need.
I am quite surprised that in the current arrangements, on which the Bill has been formulated, there is no specific reference to this specialty. I sincerely hope that the Minister will put this right in the places on the blank cheque on which he is going to write the coming regulations under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
I now come to two or three other points. One is the question of the flexibility of the vocational training. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in another place on 28th June this year:
We do not wish to make the regulations so inflexible that all doctors must follow the same training pattern. We think there is some merit in leaving some of the training for the trainer himself to develop in the various regions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th June 1976; Vol. 372, c. 655.]
I should like to develop the question of regions more widely because it seems that as yet these matters are not resolved. We still have a chance before the regulations come forward for the Minister to look at the flexibility of training which might be afforded in the three years by some occupational medical experience, some industrial medical experience and, indeed, some experience of specialised areas that do not usually come up in the normal Health Service pattern across the whole country.
In that last phrase I refer, of course, to things such as tropical diseases, which are very specialised, yet which, with the increase of travel. are becoming more of a worry for the medical profession year by year. Therefore, reference to this sort of speciality in any vocational training programme should certainly have more attention paid to it than has been the case hitherto, if we are to use primary care in the correct manner.
During our Second Reading Committee, I referred to the interchangeability for doctors in the Armed Forces, how they might, on retirement from the Forces, perhaps, be able to swell the ranks of our general practitioners. That will be possible after the passing of the Bill only if they fulfil the requirements of

the regulations to come. I do not know whether the Minister has yet been able to iron out some of the problems that might arise for doctors who have trained and then spent the whole of their medical practising life in the Forces. As the push for earlier retirement from the Forces comes for some of these people, there will be a very large problem unless we sort it out with this piece of legislation.
My next point concerns the question of the European Community. The Minister was to take up with the Commission in Brussels the question whether making vocational training for three years mandatory for British practitioners would also be able to be applied to European practitioners who might seek to come to this country as general practitioners. We urgently need further information on this matter, particularly in view of the differing standards—although very high standards—and differing practices in each of the countries of the Nine and, indeed, of other countries that may well come into the EEC within the next decade.
Finally, I refer to the situation of women doctors and their part-time training which may be necessary in view of the length of the total training period now. In the Second Reading debate and in the debate in Committee in another place, there were many references to this matter, and finally, on Report in another place, the Bill was satisfactorily amended.
However, the Minister undertook, during our Second Reading Committee, to find out what comments there may be from the Equal Opportunities Commission. and from the Women's Medical Federation, as a specific body rather than through the one voice of one of the other bodies which he was consulting. We hope that they are now satisfied with the amendment that has been made to the Bill, but this again is something that the Minister will need to consider in the preparation of regulations. It would be helpful for the House to know that this was being done.
I think that everybody welcomes the step forward that is being taken in this Bill, but we shall welcome it even more if there is a greater interchange of medical experience with industry, in occupational medicine, and in some of the


specialties about which at one time we did not have to bother, but which now concern the practice of medicine at the primary care stage. We should seek to avert the need for further medical care by up-to-date and urgent action on the problems that face the general practitioner in his surgery.

11.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I apologise to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for not having been here when he rose to speak.
The Bill, which has now virtually completed its passage through Parliament, is an important though fairly small measure compared with many of the Bills facing us. I am pleased to note the general welcome that has been given to the Bill by both sides of the House today and during our important and detailed Second Reading Committee upstairs.
We in this country are proud—and I think rightly so—of our primary care services, and this measure will enable us to improve standards still further by formalising a trend that has been taking place for some time. Already many doctors spend a period in hospital posts and as a trainee in general practice before establishing themselves permanently in general practice. Some participate in organised schemes, comprising two years in appropriate hospital posts and one year as a trainee in general practice.
There are now about 700 doctors in England undertaking a trainee year, compare with 100 doing so 10 years ago. That is very good progress. Wales and Scotland have seen similar developments. The Royal College of General Practitioners, the General Medical Services Committee and the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education have all asked that this voluntary scheme be made into a statutory one. That has always been the aim of successive Governments, and it is clearly an issue on which both sides of the House are united.

Dr. Vaughan: How many doctors are expected to undertake the mandatory training when the Bill has gone through?

Mr. Deakins: I was coming to that. The number that I gave on Second Reading was up to 1,300. We estimate that there will be a small element of growth over the period. We shall be introducing the trainee arrangements up to 1980, if that is the starting date agreed with the medical profession. We have expanded medical schools, and some of the intake from them will come forward additional to the number that we have now.
I also said on Second Reading that we were training about 900 doctors, again on a voluntary basis. We hope that that will move to the full 1,300 in the course of time, because when the scheme becomes compulsory those who have not thought it worth while to undertake this form of training on a voluntary basis will have to do so from 1980 onwards.
Let me now deal with the question of costs. The hon. Member for Reading, South reminded the House that implementation of the scheme will cost money, and in these days of tight public expenditure that is a matter of concern. By far the largest sum arises from payments to trainers and trainees. We estimate that the additional cost of requiring all doctors to be trained, as compared to the cost of continuing extension of the voluntary arrangements, will be about £1 million a year. There will also be—I know this is a matter about which hon. Members are worried from time to time—some small administrative costs, although I connot detail exactly what those might be because the exact amount will depend on detailed arrangements. I give the assurance that it will not be a significant amount.
Trainees go on educational courses, and the costs that arise here are handled within the normal programme for funding postgraduate education for GPs. In general, the expenditure to which I am referring fits in with the key element of our strategy, which is to increase the level of training in the National Health Service and to give high priority to developments in primary health care which, as the House knows, is one of the main themes of our consultation document which was issued earlier this year and which I think has been warmly welcomed in many respects.

Dr. Vaughan: What is the current cost of the voluntary scheme?

Mr. Deakins: I cannot give the exact figure, but it will be the cost of the 900 doctors now engaged in the voluntary training programme. If my arithmetic is correct, that is about two-thirds of the number that we finally expect. If the total cost when we get 1,300 trainees is £8½ million, two-thirds of that gives one an approximate idea of the current cost. The expansion of voluntary training has to be taken into account in estimating additional costs. While we might have a cost of £5 million to £6 million now, in any event it will rise to £7½ million by the time the scheme comes into effect, because more and more people going into general practice are undergoing voluntary training arrangements. Therefore, in any case costs would have gone up.
I come now to the general theme of consultation, about which I was asked. The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern about this, and I have written to him. We have had a number of consultations about the principles and mechanisms that will underlie the regulations that will be made under what has been described as a Bill giving the Government a blank check. I do not believe that that is an accurate description.
There will be exemptions—and we made this clear on Second Reading—for example, for GPs already providing the full range of general medical services when the new regulations start. For the potential GP, the regulations will have to set out clearly what he will be required to do, yet at the same time they must allow the profession scope for experiment with different patterns of training, because this is, after all, an evolving field.
The provisions for certificates of prescribed experience and of equivalent experience will meet those objectives. The arrangements will cater for the doctor from overseas. They will cater for those who can train only part time. Indeed, because of the concern about the position of women doctors a special reference was inserted in another place, and I shall come to that in a moment.
We have had much useful comment on these principles and the way in which they might be put into practice. The medical profession has also suggested a timetable. proposing 1980 as the target for the full three-year training requirement, so as to give doctors adequate time to plan their careers. Our next step will

be to prepare a comprehensive document on which we shall consult the various bodies which have an interest before we draft regulations. These consultations will go very wide and include matters that are exercising the mind of the hon. Gentleman, and also the position of women. I give the House that assurance. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that this consultation is vital because, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said on Second Reading, the preparation must be thorough. I assure the House that that is our intention and that we shall carry it through.
The Bill is an important step marking a development not only in the National Health Service but in general practice as a speciality in its own right.
Now I come to the points made by the hon. Member for Wallasey, particularly about women's organisations. As she rightly said, the matter was mentioned in another place and an amendment was made there to the Bill to allow not only for women but, as I said on Second Reading, doctors with domestic commitments to be enabled to take advantage of the Bill, because there may be men who are in a similar position.
Our consultations so far have been with the General Medical Services Committee which includes one member nominated by the Medical Women's Federation. Doubt was expressed on Second Reading whether that was entirely adequate, and I gave an assurance in Committee that I should be happy to consult the Medical Women's Federation direct, in addition to consulting the General Medical Services Committee on which it has one nominated member.
On the more general issue of consultation, I assure the House that although we have consulted fairly widely in the run-up to the Bill, our further round of consultations, once we have produced this comprehensive document on the detail of the regulations, will be even wider. I stand by the undertakings that I have given. We want to press on, but I assure the House that it will not be a case of hasty consultations. We must get the thing right. We must take the medical profession along with us.
Criticism was expressed of the Bill being a blank cheque. I want to assure the House that if it is, the way in which


it is filled in will depend very much on the course of our further consultations. With regard to people retiring from the Armed Forces it will be necessary to have further consultations with the profession on this. I do not anticipate any difficulty but, nevertheless, it is a point which I can assure the hon. Member for Wallasey we shall take on board.
The EEC question, which occupied us in Committee, is a difficult one. There is no doubt at all that at present there appears to be a division between what we are proposing in the Bill and the appropriate EEC directive and regulations. However, we have had a sympathetic response from the officials in Brussels with regard to our intentions because, as I pointed out in Second Reading Committee, a number of other EEC countries are also moving in the same direction, albeit at a different pace and perhaps in rather different detail. Nevertheless, I think it is a generally recognised objective in the EEC that one ought to move towards full professional training for general practice.
With regard to the legal position, I cannot give any more assurances to the House than I gave on Second Reading. The position is still not fully clear, but we expect the matter to be discussed further at the appropriate committee of senior officials of the EEC countries in Brussels next month. We certainly do not anticipate any obstacle from that quarter, but I take the point that we must try to get the position fully clarified before we finally go ahead.

Mrs. Chalker: I would be grateful if the Minister, following those discussions, could inform us about what is going on so that the pathway is clear leading up to the discussions on the regulations. If there is no communication through the usual channels after Brussels there may still be some unrest in the medical profession, and it would be pleasant to be able to put those minds at rest.

Mr. Deakins: I will undertake to keep the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reading, South informed before we place the regulations for approval. But I cannot guarantee that we shall quickly clear up this difficulty, if it is a difficulty. I am afraid that we must be advised by the lawyers. As the hon. Member for Read-

ing, South will know, there are areas of Common Market law which are not entirely clear in relation to the laws of national Member States, but I take the point which has been made.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a PLP House of Commons Health Group. Would he also keep that group informed on the same point?

Mr. Deakins: I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. One way of keeping hon. Members informed, rather than writing to individuals—since the House may well be interested—might be to arrange that a parliamentary Question be answered on the progress when we have made some progress in Brussels.
With regard to specialties, mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey, this is essentially a matter for the profession and not for my Department to advise upon. Psychiatry is already included in the list of specialties recognised for vocational training allowance and this would obviously include experience in mental illness or in mental handicap.
The hon. Member for Reading, South raised an important point about appeals. I think that that was mentioned during the Second Reading Committee in my windup speech, in answer to points raised by hon. Members about what we were proposing to do about consultation. I would add that since the appeals will relate to professional assessment—I stress that—we doubt whether the Council on Tribunals will have a rôle, but we are in touch with the Council about this. There will be a final appeal to the Secretary of State, who will seek advice from a professional body. This body could well be the Council's joint committee on post-graduate training for general practice or a body similar in constitution. I stress again that this is a specialised area and, obviously, we would also take advantage of the professional advice from the profession concerned.

Dr. Vaughan: I also ask the Minister whether this would come within the sphere of the Health Commissioner—the Ombudsman.

Mr. Deakins: I think we must wait until the actual machinery has been established before we can determine whether this would fall within the remit of the Ombudsman. Obviously we shall have


to proceed stage by stage. The first stage is to get the appeal machinery right, and secondly, we must see whether it would fall within the scope of the Ombudsman. But since the hon. Gentleman has raised it, and has suggested that it ought to come within the scope of the Ombudsman, it may well be that this is something we shall have to determine when we consult the medical profession about the precise form of the appeal machinery.
I cannot speak without notice on whether it would require any change in the legislation relating to the Ombudsman. One would hope not, but it is a point that we shall take on board in our further consultations.
In commending the Bill to the House I would pay tribute to the important work of those members of the Royal College of General Practitioners and others who have worked so hard and long to foster the training of GPs on a voluntary basis. I am glad, as I am sure the whole House will be, that their efforts have now culminated in this significant step.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill acordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

RESTRICTIONS OF IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND PLANTS.

11.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
Government Amendment No. 10.

Orders of the Day — New Clause1

OFFENCE TO SELL ETC. THINGS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1 OR THEIR DERIVATIVES

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale, has in his possession for the purpose of sale, or displays to the public—

(a) anything which has been imported contrary to section 1 above, or
(b) anything which is made wholly or partly from anything referred to in paragraph (a) above and which at the time of the alleged offence (though not necessarily at the time of importation) constitutes an item to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies,

shall be guilty of an offence; and in the following provisions of this section a "restricted article" means anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a restricted article if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

(a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and
(b) that, at the time the alleged offence was committed, he had no reason to believe that it was a restricted article.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(a) above, a person shall be taken to have made such enquiries as are there mentioned if he produces to the court a certificate which was furnished by the person from whom the accused obtained possession of the restricted article (the supplier), which


was signed by the supplier or by a person authorised by him, and which states that—

(a) the supplier made enquiries at the time the restricted article came into his possession in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and
(b) the supplier had no reason to believe at the time he relinquished possession of the restricted article to the accused that the article was at that time a restricted article.

(4) A person who furnishes for the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes for those purposes a certificate which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (4) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) In this section any refernce to sale includes references to barter and exchange.

(7) For the purposes of this section a restricted article is displayed to the public if it is displayed to the public generally or any section of it, and (in either case) whether in return for money or otherwise.

(8) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence.'

Amendment (a) to New Clause 1, in subsection (1), after 'sells', insert 'advertises'.

Government Amendment No. 84.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 5

POSSESSION OF LIVE ANIMALS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1

'(1) Subject to subsection (2) below a person who has in his possession any live animal which has been imported contrary to section 1 above shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a live animal if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

(a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it had been imported contrary to section 1 above, and
(b) that at the time when it first came into his possession he had no reason to believe that it had been so imported.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—


(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 400;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(4) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence.

(5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may make such order as to the forfeiture or disposal of any animal in respect of which the offence was committed as the court thinks fit.

(6) The Secretary of State may, under section 1(2) above, issue a licence for the importation of a live animal subsequently to its actual importation, and the animal shall, for the purposes of this section only, be deemed to have been lawfully imported under section 1 above as on (but not before) the date of issue of the licence'.

Amendment (a) to New Clause 5, after subsection (4), add—
'()(a) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to suspect that an offence has been committed under subsection (1) above and that evidence thereof may be found on any premises, he may grant a warrant to any constable to enter and search those premises for the purpose of obtaining that evidence.
(b) In the application of subsection (4)(a) above to Scotland, the reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff'.

Mr. Barnett: I apologise that I shall have to speak at some length in order to deal with this group of amendments. but it covers some of the important points which have arisen in the Bill. Although I shall have to be on my feet for a rather long time perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House for me to deal with a number of related points.
In dealing with Amendment No. 1, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 10 and to New Clause 1. These are the most important issues that the Government wish to bring before the House today. The combined effect of the two amendments and the new clause would be to delete the subsections which provide specific offences and penalties for illegal import and for the handling of illegally imported goods and to replace them with a provision which would make it an offence subject to a penalty, to sell or display illegally imported goods.
In its original form, the Bill simply declared certain items to be prohibited imports, thus constituting the offences and attracting penalties provided in Customs legislation. The only persons authorised to bring proceedings under Customs legislation, which covers subsequent handling as well as importation. are of course the Commissioners of Customs and Excise themselves. There is a long tradition that these powers should be reserved to Customs. However, in another place it was felt strongly that provision should be made in this case for prosecution by other persons or bodies. Accordingly subsections (3), (9) and (10) were introduced, despite strong Government advice that they would be unworkable.
I accept entirely the view expressed in that other place that the voluntary conservation bodies have a valuable part to play in the enforcement of the Bill. These bodies have a fund of expertise at their disposal and may well be able to detect prohibited items inside the country which have eluded Customs at the ports. Indeed they have from time to time reported suspected breaches of our existing controls. I can well understand, too, that these bodies are not content with a passive rôle; they want a slice of the action in the shape of a power to bring proceedings themselves. It must, however, be understood that Customs must remain the prime enforcement body under this Bill: it is they to whom we must look to ensure that we can fulfil our international obligations under the Convention. We must ensure that any extra activity complements the work of Customs and does not obstruct it.
We have therefore sought a compromise solution which would allow persons or bodies other than Customs to bring proceedings in certain cases and yet safeguard the powers of Customs and avoid as far as possible overlap with their work. The exercise has been protracted and difficult and I owe much to the positive contributions made by the Retail Consortium and by the conservationists themselves. The result is New Clause 1.
Our objective has been to create conditions in which conservationists can pursue suspect items which are on sale or display within the country. Their activities would then be complementary to those

of Customs, whose main rôle is naturally enforcement at the point of importation.
The new clause would make it an absolute offence to sell, to offer or expose for sale, to have in possession for sale or to display any item the unlicensed import of which is made illegal by this Bill. It does not make an offence of possession alone—it must be possession for the purpose of sale. But it covers also goods made from illegal imports provided those goods are of a kind listed in Schedule 3.
A defence is provided in subsection (2) whereby anyone charged may show that he made inquiries when he took delivery of the goods. The inquiries have to be "such as are reasonable" in the circumstances. Clearly the circumstances can vary greatly. In the case of a private individual buying from a reputable store, one would imagine that a court would think inquiry superfluous; hence the insertion of the words "if any" in line 13. In the case of a large shop buying from a specialist dealer, one would look for some more positive inquiry, although I do not see that such inquiries normally need extend hack up the chain to the importer. The interpretation of the term "reasonable" in any particular case would of course be entirely a matter for the courts. The other leg of the defence, that the person charged must have had no reason to believe that the goods were illegal at the time the alleged offence was committed, is, I hope, self-explanatory.
Subsection (3) provides a means whereby a trader can satisfy the requirement of making reasonable inquiries. If he obtains from his supplier a certificate which complies with the terms of the subsection, he will be deemed to have made reasonable inquiry. This provision has been made in response to a request of retailers. There is, however, no need for anyone to trouble with certificates if he prefers to pursue his inquiries in other ways. Subsection (4) provides an offence for false statements on the certificate.
Subsection (5) provides penalties which conform to those generally applicable to offences of this kind and have regard to the custodial penalties in the Customs and Excise Act 1952 for illegal import with intent to evade. Subsection (8) ensures that the penalties for prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Act are not affected.
So far as New Clause 1 is concerned, the Government will be content to leave it to the House to decide whether persons or bodies other than Customs should be allowed to bring proceedings. But subsection (3) is not workable: it would seriously handicap Customs, and I must ask the House to support the amendment to delete it.
11.45 a.m.
I now turn to New Clause 5. Again, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to reject it. This new clause would make it an offence to possess a live animal which has been illegally imported.
This new clause is clearly related to New Clause 1 which makes an offence of sale and display. The House may know that we were urged to add possession to the list of offences in New Clause 1. We declined to do so for several reasons. One was that it has been suggested to us that the provision would be really useful only in relation to birds of prey—an important subject but minor in terms of the scope of this Bill. Another is that the provision strikes at private individuals who may not be concerned with trade or exhibition. Thirdly, possession is a difficult area of law.
Because we knew that some of the conservation bodies were keen to have this clause and because we knew that time after Committee would be limited, the Government agreed to take a major hand in shaping the provision. We hoped to be able to say at least that the clause is workable even if we did not agree with the principle. But after detailed discussion among four Departments over several weeks we have failed to come up with a viable proposition. I cannot say categorically that nothing can be devised, but we have done our utmost and not found a solution.
Today I can only summarise our difficulties briefly. The main constraints are that one cannot leave an individual open to repeated prosecutions against which he cannot defend himself, and one cannot create conditions which encourage an owner to kill his animal. We have looked at a range of possibilities, including seizure by the courts, seizure by Customs, voluntary surrender exemption from further prosecutions and a certificate which legitimises the animal. Subsections

(5) and (6) represent two of these alternatives.
It seems possible to arrange something after a court case, but we cannot see what to do if it becomes known that an animal has been illegally imported but no case has been brought. Subsection (6) would place the Secretary of State in the impossible position of having to make judgments, such as whether an animal was likely to have been illegally imported, before he could decide whether or not to issue a licence. This seeks to give him a function which should be the prerogative of the courts.
The Government are opposed to this amendment on principle, in that its limited usefulness does not appear to justify the interference with private individuals. But I must also advise that the amendment as drafted is totally unworkable and ask the House to reject it.
Amendment (a) to New Clause 5 would in defined circumstances allow a power of search in relation to the offence of possession of live animals in New Clause 5. It has been suggested that the objective is not so much to search for the animal as to search for documentary evidence of illegal import. No doubt such a power of search could be useful, but I have some reservations whether this measure of interference with private indidividuals is desirable. However, the Government have no strong feelings on the matter and are content to leave the House to decide.
I appreciate that the wording follows closely that in the Protection of Birds Act 1954. There are no objections to the amendment on drafting grounds.
I think that that covers all the matters raised in this group of amendments.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: First, I thank the Minister for that necessarily fairly lengthy explanation of this substantial group of amendments, which comprise perhaps the most important of the matters that will come before the Committee.
I welcome the consultations to which the Minister referred. They are most useful in legislation involving voluntary bodies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important role that voluntary bodies have to play in this area of the law, particularly if we have regard


to the specialised knowledge which they have. I would not begin to claim anything in the way of expertise in relation to the flora and fauna with which we are concerned.
In considering the Bill we must remind ourselves that relatively few people can distinguish between some of the species and sub-species and similarly between plants that are at risk and those that are not endangered but comparatively common. Therefore, in the operation of the Bill and in the consultations which the advisory committee has the voluntary bodies have a continuing role to play.
This group of amendments deals with enforcement. I agree with the Minister that Customs should be the prime enforcement agency. I hope that he agrees that the point of enforcement should be the port of entry. If illegal importation has to be dealt with at a point inland other than the point of entry, something will have happened which we prefer not to happen? It is not just a question of Customs being the prime enforcement agency. In a perfect world—I accept that it is not perfect—Customs would be the only enforcement agency, because everything would be dealt with at the point of entry.
New Clause 1(3) is of particular importance to retailers. I take this opportunity of declaring an interest as director of a retailing company, not a company that deals in flora and fauna, which are the subject of the Bill. The company is a member of the Retail Consortium, which, I hope the Minister will agree, contributed substantially to the consultations which led to the tabling of the clause.
I hope that the subsection will simplify the investigation of a possible offence by enabling documentary evidence to be produced in a defined way which will clear the retailers' position. If the investigation has to go back to the previous source, the documentary evidence will identify what that is. The signatory of the certificate will be the person to go to if further inquiries are necessary.
The Minister gave several reasons why New Clause 5 is unacceptable, ending with the Government's ultimate deterrent on these occasions—that it is unworkable and inadequately drafted. I am sorry to hear that, because an important point

arises here. New Clause 1 deals with possession for the purpose of sale. I was surprised to hear from the Minister that possession is a very difficult aspect of the law. I have always been under the non-lawyer's misapprehension that it was nine points of the law and whether a person had something was relatively simple to determine—simpler than determining whether he had something for the purpose of sale. However, if the Minister is so advised by the experts, we must accept what he says.
The purpose of New Clause 5 was to create a new offence—possession, without involving the purpose of sale, of a live animal. Voluntary bodies believe that live animals cause most concern. The Minister referred to birds of prey, and I accept that it is perhaps with birds of prey that the risk is greatest. They are frequently imported not to be displayed or advertised and, therefore, would not come within the scope of New Clause 1. I understand that approximately 300 birds of prey are imported annually, nearly all for falconry. Hence, they are held privately.
The experience of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is that Customs and Excise has difficulty in enforcing legislation even at the ports of entry because of the problem of identifying species and sub-species. The society refers to the possibility of importers pulling the wool over the eyes of Customs and Excise. I had always thought that that was difficult to do, but I appreciate that with sub-species of falcons there is a risk. The falcon is himself hooded when he comes through the Customs for inspection.
The Minister raised certain specific objections to the clause which I must accept as valid, especially his reference to continuous prosecution and the risk that the threat of continued prosecution would be self-defeating in that it might lead to the animal being unnecessarily destroyed. That is not the objective. We should like to prevent the import of endangered species but if they are brought in we do not want that to result in a specimen being destroyed. We want to see that it finds it way into appropriate hands.
The Minister also said that subsection (6) would cause difficulty to the Secretary of State. I see that there are


difficulties, but I hope that the Minister will assure us that this aspect will be kept under continual review. Experience may show that we need to look again at the problem of possession not for the purpose of sale of certain species, particularly birds of prey.
I understand that New Clause 1 is acceptable to the bodies which have been consulted and, therefore, give it a welcome.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I notice that Clause 1(3), which is to be replaced by New Clause 1, imposes a fine not exceeding £400 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. Will the Minister explain why the term of imprisonment has jumped from three months to two years? In these days of inflation I would have expected the fine to jump from £400 to £2,000.
The Minister has done a splendid job this morning. The Bill will be a tremendous help and cause no end of fun to people who take the trouble to read Schedule 1.

12 noon.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to reply immediately to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) or whether I should put my case first and then he can reply later.
I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Minister's speech. Some of us were taken by surprise by the speed with which the earlier legislation went through the House. I know that some other Members who should be here have not arrived yet, unfortunately, so we may find ourselves having to move amendments that we did not expect to move.
I want to speak first to Amendment (a) to New Clause 1. It stands in my name and seeks to insert the word "advertisers". I am not a lawyer and I always hesitate to argue about matters on which I do not have sound information. However, I understand that the meaning of subsection (1) is that it will be an offence to sell, offer or expose for sale, or have in one's possession for sale, an illegal import. It does not cover advertising for sale which, I am informed,

is not an offer but an invitation to treat. Thus, an agent advertising in a newspaper on behalf of someone else would not be covered, and a prosecutor would, in prosecuting the agent, need to prove that the principal had actually instructed the agent.
This could cause difficulties. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether he can accept the amendment and insert the word "advertisers" after "sells" in line 1 so that the subsection would then read:
Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, advertises, offers or exposes for sale".
Before moving to the other amendment which stands in my name I draw attention to the words "in a material particular" in subsection (4). They seem to be favourite words of parliamentary draftsmen. An interesting discussion took place about these words in the other place where, incidentally, they debated the whole Bill with great interest and produced some excellent amendments. The Bill is much better for that. We should congratulate the other place and also congratulate the Government on accepting many of the ideas that were put forward in the other place.
I imagine that this is another legal nicety, and I have amendments to deal with it later. However, it appears that in the past the Government have certainly taken this matter on board and omitted these words from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and also from a measure which had something to do with wrecks at sea.
I am not sufficiently sound in law to be able to argue this in great detail, but if the Government are to give any consideration to the amendments that I shall explain later, it would be a nonsense for these words to appear in this new clause. I make the point now only because I intend to refer to it a little later. I ask the Minister to consider the point and to let me know what he thinks about it.
I come finally to Amendment (a) to New Clause 5 which was so ably expounded by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). As we are very thin on the ground at present, it would be nonsense for us to push our luck on New Clause 5. The Government have


specifically stated that they will not accept the clause. They have given sound reasons why they cannot accept it at this stage. I agree that they have tried to meet the point raised by the conservation societies, which have been discussing the matter in recent days. I therefore accept the line taken by the hon. Member for Hove.
I was heartened by the Minister's statement that the Government had a more open mind about Amendment (a) to New Clause 5. I ask the Under-Secretary to accept the amendment. The conservation societies in particular, and many of the noble Lords who spoke to the matter in the other place, also went along with what is proposed therein.
I know that there is some feeling about infringement of the freedom of the citizen—that private bodies, as they probably would be, or private citizens could go to magistrates for leave to search or for a police warrant when they suspected that documentary evidence could be found which could lead to the subsequent prosecution of someone who was illegally holding species which he should not have been holding. Nevertheless, we know that this illegal holding is going on. Unfortunately it is going on to an increasing extent. We have seen evidence of this recently in a television film.
To enforce the Government's own legislation it is vital that this additional protection be provided. The Minister referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which alone has reported more breaches than the Customs and Excise claims to have received complaints about, or at any rate to have investigated.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have tong experience of exercising the rights of private prosecution responsibly. I do not think that I have ever heard a complaint to the effect that they have not acted responsibly.
Under the Protection of Birds Act the RSPB undertakes about 40 prosecutions a year, in most cases where the police fail to act or where the police ask the society to do so. In all cases the society acts reluctantly because of the expense involved: it has limited finance, which it would much rather use

in other ways. It prefers ordinarily to act as expert police witnesses. None the less, to make the legislation enforceable it prosecutes where necessary and the results of those prosecutions are on the record for all to see. They are nearly always successful. The society prosecutes only where it has a sound basis on which to proceed. As far as the society is aware, there have been no instances of "foolish and irresponsible" private prosecutions by members of the public.

Mr. Sainsbury: On the subject of private prosecutions, does the hon. Member agree that if it were possible to do so it would be an acceptable compromise for there to be private prosecution by stated or responsible organisations such as those to which he referred?

Mr. Ross: I entirely accept that point. It would be much better if prosecution could be left to the responsible bodies. Trouble may arise if private individuals take action. This is a point which we should like to have seen written into the Bill. The excellent track record of the RSPB and RSPCA shows that they are the sort of bodies which should be empowered to deal with these matters.
I can only ask the Minister to say here and now that he will incorporate such a provision into the Bill, because I do not think that we can push it to a vote. If there were sufficient Members present we might, but it would be a nonsense to try at this stage. I hope that my argument, badly put though it has been, has convinced the Minister that this amendment would strengthen the Bill. I am sure that if it is not written into the Bill we shall have to return on another day and amend it to include a provision of this sort, and we all know the pressure on parliamentary time.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad in a way that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) arrived a little late. I regret that, in view of the very large group of amendments that I had to explain, I made no comment on the specific point of advertising, which I know is of some concern to him. This is a good opportunity for me to deal with the point fully.
Before I do so. however, I want to thank the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for his very reasonable and


helpful speech and for his recognition of the extent to which my Department has consulted the Retail Consortium, the conservation societies, and so on, which have been of great assistance to us in the drafting of the Bill and in the amendments that we have now tabled.
I recognise the hon. Member's anxieties about the possession issue, but it is not for want of trying by my officials that we have been unable to solve the difficulties. There might be an opportunity in the other place for the matter to be re-examined and some solution to the problem might be found. But there are considerable difficulties, particularly about possession by a private individual.
The hon. Member for Hove said that the correct way was to deal with imports at the point of entry into the country. He said that solid progress could be made over the offering and exposing for sale of goods. It would be unfortunate if we included in the Bill anything that could give rise to objections, and objections could arise if powers of search were involved. Nevertheless, I shall look at the issue before the Bill goes back to the Lords, although I cannot hold out any hope that we can do anything.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked about the increase in the maximum prison sentence. It has nothing whatever to do with inflation, but I understand that two years is in line with the custodial penalties under other Customs and Excise Acts. The change was made to bring this sentence into line.

Mr. Fell: Why was the sentence three months before?

Mr. Barnett: I cannot say. Perhaps it was a mistake, brought to the attention of the Department and the amendment suggested as a consequence to establish a coherence in related penalties.
We resist the proposal about advertising by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. This extra offence will add little to the powers of enforcement. To take one example, if someone saw a classified advertisement for a fur coat and suspected that it had been illegally imported, he could ask to see it and then proceed once an offer to sell had been made. At the other extreme, if someone saw a general advertisement for

goods of a certain type, he would have great difficulty in proving which particular goods were being advertised. In any event, it would be difficult for anyone to prove that the goods advertised had in fact been illegally imported without going to see them.
I know that there is a general feeling that the advertisement of goods made from endangered species is to be deprecated insofar as it may stimulate demand. But this Bill covers goods from Appendix II species which are commonly on sale, as well as goods from Appendix I, so a blanket ban is hardly desirable. This new clause would not be a suitable vehicle for such a blanket provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of an amendment which he hopes to move later. I had some difficulty in following his argument and I hope that he will be happy if I deal with it later.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Minister for his comments on my amendment to New Clause 5. Time is short and we want to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, but if the matter could be considered and an appropriate provision put into the Bill in another place, I and many conservation societies will be grateful. I realise that the Minister cannot give any commitment. I accept what he says and I shall not press the amendment. I also accept his comments on the second amendment to include the word "advertisers". His argument was sound.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Minister. We all agree that the important thing at this stage of the Session is to ensure that the legislation reaches the statute book. We have not got much time, but I shall not be provocative and say why. I accept that the Bill might have to take second place. The prime object is to get the Bill on the statute book, but if it is found later that there are loopholes, perhaps we may come back to it in few years' time with the benefit of experience. Because of the timetable I accept that it might be difficult to do much and we shall bear that in mind when dealing with the lengthy list of amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall not grant a licence to import or export a live wild animal for the time being listed in Appendix I or Appendices I and II, of the Convention to be used for the purposes of scientific research unless the scientific authority is satisfied that the species concerned cannot be bred in captivity, and that there is no alternative to the use of an animal listed in that appendix or those appendices'.
I rise with some diffidence because I understood that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) would be here to move the amendment. I also understand that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) cannot be here today. I have not studied the amendment in great detail but I shall do my best to explain it to the House.
In 1975 research establishments in the United Kingdom imported large numbers of primates, rats and mice. Imports involved about 10,000 primates, 23,000 rats—it is odd that we should be importing rats—and nearly 10,000 mice. A total of nearly 44,000 animals were imported and most of the primates are considered rare or endangered.
Before the controls came into effect on 1st January 1976, the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964 was in operation but that was suspended on 31st December, 1975 under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The report of the advisory committee on that Act has recently been published and it is relevant that the committee felt obliged to recommend issuing a number of licences for the apes—the most threatened of the primates. It clearly did not wish to do so and the heaviest pressure came from medical research establishments.
The committee felt that the sharp fall off in imports of other monkeys was due mainly to their having been overexploited. In a section entitled "primates for research" the committee reiterated its concern over the large numbers of primates imported for that purpose and urged once again that captive breeding programmes be developed. It welcomed the initiatives at the Wellcome Institute to breed one species.
It was clearly disappointed, however, at the overall lack of progress in breeding

for research over the years. It further deplored that the reports of the Medical Research Council on techniques of breeding animals for research had still not been published. It felt that the publication of such a report would relieve the pressure on wild populations that are now declining by giving a strong stimulus to projects for captive breeding to meet research needs.
This means that, even in the case of highly vulnerable species, conservation advisory committees are unable to resist pressure from research bodies—medical or otherwise. Yet it is known that little effort has gone into the most elementary first step—the breeding of captive animals for research. While many people find even that idea distasteful, especially since much of the research is wasteful or frivolous, it would represent a small step forward to prevent the extinction of species.
The Bill amended in this form would make the Scientific Authority restrict the import for research purposes unless stringent conditions were satisfied. It is perhaps a question of balancing the needs of humanity today against the needs of humanity tomorrow. If we let the trend continue unchecked and a number of animals become extinct, mankind will suffer from knowing that those animals are no more, and if they were essential for research purposes, it will be just too bad.
Under the new controls, the species apparently taking the brunt of research demands in the first seven months of operations were the reptiles. One hundred Caiman crocodilus from South America were imported or given licences for import from the wild for medical research purposes. This species is on Appendix II of the convention, yet all scientific authorities in this field recognise it to be endangered. I understand that there is a proposal to put all crocodilians on Appendix I of the convention. This the Scientific Authority has been aware of, yet it has granted licences to import 100 such animals. There are to be further discussions next month, and there may be some alterations then. I can only conclude that the Scientific Authority is under pressure. The animals are endangered, and the amendment is essential to prevent such pressures continuing.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I have every sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but we do not consider that there is any need to write these provisions into the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck), who, I understand, cannot be here. He may be reassured that certainly for Appendix I animals his aims are already met. I am advised that the Scientific Authority for Animals carefully scrutinises all applications to import Appendix I animals for the purpose of scientific research. It requires to be satisfied that the research is bona fide, that the particular species is essential for the project, and that there is no captive-bred stock available before it will recommend the granting of a licence. The authority is very knowledgeable about medical research as well as conservation.
As far as I am aware, no import licences for scientific research have been issued in respect of what are now Appendix I species in the past three years or so. For Appendix II animals the convention gives us no remit to inquire as to the purpose of import.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances and the reasons why I do not think that it is possible for us to incorporate the amendment. I recognise his concern on this general question. If there is any assistance I can give him through correspondence, I shall be glad to give it, but I do not think that the amendment falls naturally within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State may charge for the issue of a licence under subsection (2) above such sum (if any) as is for the time being prescribed by order of the Secretary of State'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Barnett: The amendments give the Secretary of State a permissive power

to charge for licences issued under the Bill and require him to pay any proceeds into the Consolidated Fund. New Clause 3 is also relevant. It provides that the power may be exercised only by order subject to negative resolution.
The provision does not mean that immediately the Bill becomes law charges will be made for licences. There is no present intention to make charges, as no equitable scheme has yet been devised to cover the costs of collecting the money. The provision is inserted because of the possibility that it may be done later.

Mr. Sainsbury: Those who deal in the Appendix II animals which are commonly involved in trade will be glad that there is no present intention to charge for licences, although clearly the implementation of the Bill will bring with it some costs, albeit limited and for a good purpose.
It might be worth considering charging for the grant of licences for the import of Appendix I species, for which it seems probable that there will be a further need for investigation and perhaps communication with the country of origin. The costs could well be higher.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I cannot give an assurance now, but that is an important point which I shall bear in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 38, leave out
'in a material particular'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take the following amendments:

No. 5, in page 2, line 40, leave out
'in a material particular'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 42, leave out
'in a material particular'.

No. 7, in page 3, line 2, leave out
'in a material particular'.

Mr. Ross: On a number of occasions there have been arguments about whether the words which the amendment would delete should appear in legislation. Similar amendments were moved in the other place by Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, as reported at column 460 of the Official Report of another place. I support the noble Lord's arguments.


Baroness Stedman was somewhat misleading in her reply, reported at column 462.
The amendments would make it an offence to make any mistake on an application, however trivial, if it is made knowingly or recklessly. By no use of the English language can a knowing error be called a mistake, and recklessness involves not caring whether a statement is true or false. It is just as morally blameworthy. The Minister's reply in another place seemed to condone deliberate or reckless deceit to obtain a licence for the import of a species which, by definition, should be strictly protected. That is the sort of attitude that brings the law into contempt.
There are other examples of how these matters have been dealt with where the phrase has been withdrawn. Section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 makes it an offence to disturb a designated historical wreck, whether or not one knows of its designation. I think that I am correct in saying that the phrase was removed by the present Government when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill was passing through the other place.
Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to endangered species, which are even more important than wrecks and are irreplaceable. Lies and deceit may be deliberately practiced with impunity—this is unfortunately an area in which it happens—unless the prosecution can prove that it was a material point. Why is it felt necessary to include the words?

Mr. Guy Barnett: A similar amendment was withdrawn after some discussion in another place. The amendments would make it an offence to give information which was false in any particular, however trivial, in order to obtain a licence. Therefore, they seem to cover the case not only where wrong information is given deliberately in the hope of obtaining a licence but where accidental errors are made.
12.30 p.m.
Last night, thinking this matter over, I thought of another kind of error that might make someone liable to prosecution in this context. Supposing there had to be a reference to the date of birth and a woman applicant, wishing to conceal her age, made a misleading statement

as to her birth date. She would, in that case, deliberately be misleading the Secretary of State in filling up the form, but surely not in a material particular.
The subsection as it stands makes it an offence only to give information which is false in a material particular. I consider that this drafting is adequate to cover the offences which we would reasonably wish to see published. As the wording stands, it is for the courts to decide whether a false particular is in fact "material"—that is, whether it could influence the Secretary of State to make a decision other than the one he would have made if he had known the facts.
If a false particular, however apparently trivial, is in fact held by the courts to be material, the person concerned would be liable to conviction. But if the courts did not consider the particulars in question to be material, it would seem unduly harsh to penalise the applicant for making a mis-statement which would not have affected the decision on his application.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the point that I am making—that this part of the Bill is deliberately tightly drawn so that prosecution, or liability to prosecution, does not arise where it does not have anything to do with misleading the Secretary of State in relation to the possibility of approving a licence.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I found the Minister's reply interesting. We could get into complicated arguments on the amendment, but I accept what he has said and I shall not press the matter. However, when we are talking about animals and conservation, I still think that these words will perhaps be used as a protection for people who should not have it. I am sure that the conservation societies feel as I do—that there will be people who will deliberately fill in false returns—we know that that is happening now.
In another place, Baroness Stedman said that she might be persuaded to accept the amendment, but, in the end, noble Lords failed to persuade her, and I have failed again today, I still think that the words should not be in the Bill. The people who deal in this traffic know well what they are doing when they fill in these forms.

Mr. Sainsbury: I sympathise with the objective of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but would he not accept that the courts would consider a matter to be material if someone were making a false statement with the purpose of deliberately misleading the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ross: I hope that that will be the case. We must wait and see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(7A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

(a) to maintain a register of licences issued under subsection (2) above, and of certificates issued in pursuance of subsection (7B) below;
(b) to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and
(c) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Secretary of State, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

(7B) If a person who proposes to make or has made an application to the Secretary of State for any licence in pursuance of subsection (2) above—

(a) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate providing that subsection (7A) above shall not apply to the whole or part of any licence given, or any terms imposed, in consequence of that application; and
(b) satisfies the Secretary of State that it would prejudice to an unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a trade secret,
the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to that person providing that subsection (7A) above shall not apply to such of the things mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection as are specified in the certificate'.
I put the Minister's mind at rest at once by saying that this is a probing amendment, even if it is lengthy. The matter was discussed fully on two occasions in another place. It was raised by Lord Wynne-Jones, to whom we should all pay tribute when discussing this clause, and by Baroness White. The discussion there was helpful. It progressed to the extent that, on the second occasion, Baroness Stedman gave an assurance in relation to Appendix I species.
We always have to remember that we are not in the Bill distinguishing between Appendix I and Appendix II

species, for the good reason that there will be transfers between the two, particularly to Appendix I, I expect, from time to time. It makes for easier administration to try to avoid writing into the Bill a provision which will be subject to fairly numerous changes. My purpose with this amendment is to see whether I can get the Minister to take us still further than we got in Lady Stedman's assurance in another place.
I think that all concerned would agree that it is the Appendix I species about which we must be particularly concerned. We must expect that the number of licences granted for Appendix I species will be very limited and subject to careful scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman has said. Appendix II species are customarily in commercial trade and there will, therefore, be a large number of licences in their case. Clearly, to write in a requirement that one had to publish a register of such licences would not only require a lot of work but would consume a lot of paper, which those of us concerned with the Bill would wish to avoid if possible.
I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will publish—not just make available, as was suggested in another place—details of the licences issued for the importation of species in Appendix I of the convention. I suggest that it be done annually.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for explaining the nature of the amendment, and I hope that I can go some way towards satisfying his request.
The subject matter of this amendment has been discussed several times with the conservation bodies, and was debated in another place. I am willing to repeat and perhaps extend the undertaking that the Government gave them. Information on licences for species on Appendix I of the convention can be disclosed because such species are not in commercial trade. It was said in another place that details would be made available to bona fide inquirers. I am now prepared to say that a list of licences, with details, will be prepared approximately annually and made available on request.
The convention allows for captive-bred Appendix I species to be treated as though they were on Appendix II. Such


animals may, therefore, enter commercial trade and would have to be excluded from any list.
As regards Appendix II species, I must repeat that details cannot be released because of commercial confidence. If, however, the export of an Appendix II species were to be barred by the country of origin, its status would become similar to an Appendix I species, and we would be prepared to answer inquiries.
The system of certificates proposed in the amendment would be burdensome on traders and costly to administer, bearing in mind that the number of Appendix II Licences issued in a year is approaching 10,000 and we can expect many of the traders concerned to apply for certificates.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that this new undertaking to make available a list of Appendix I licences is as far as the Government can possibly go, and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for taking that fairly substantial step forward. He said that the list of licences issued for species in Appendix I would be prepared approximately annually and made available on request. I suggest that it should be on sale at an appropriate price rather than available on request. One of the problems with something that is available on request is that sometimes those who would most benefit and would like to see it may not know that it is available on request. On the other hand, if it is published at the appropriate price, that is a more practical way to meet the point.
I take it from the Minister's remarks that those species which have in practice become de facto Appendix I species because the export has been barred by the country of origin—or if there is a proposal that they should become Appendix I species and the Scientific Authority is treating the species as an Appendix I species—will also be included in the list of licences that the Minister will publish. I also take it from the Minister's remarks that the names and addresses of the licensees will be included in the information that is published in relation to these Appendix I species.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall do my best to help the hon. Gentleman. All I can say

about his suggestion concerning the possibility of sale rather than being available on request, is that I shall examine it as a possibility. I take this point that if something is for sale it becomes more readily known that it is available. I shall consider it and see whether it is a reasonable proposition.
The status of Appendix II species which are barred by the countries of origin from export from those countries would become similar to that of the Appendix I species, and we would be prepared to answer inquiries. I shall examine whether it would be possible to include them in any list, but I cannot give a definite undertaking at the moment on that point.
With regard to licences, I shall let the hon. Member know the answer to his inquiry. I am unable to tell him at the moment.

Mr. Sainsbury: In the light of the Minister's assurances, for which I am very grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to this Act' and insert
'to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies'.
This is a drafting amendment which brings the wording into line with subsection (1)(c).

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (9) and (10).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

POWER TO MODIFY SCHEDULES

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 14 and Government New Clause 3—Orders.

Mr. Barnett: The effect of these amendments is to gather up the procedural provisions relating to most of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and to place them in one new clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4

POWER TO RESTRICT PORTS AT WHICH LIVE ANIMALS MAY BE IMPORTED

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 26, leave out from first 'may' to end of line 33 and insert
'make an order under this section relating to any kind of animal.
(1A) An order under this section may provide that (subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order) it is prohibited to do such one or more of the following things as is (or are) specified in the order, that is to say—

(a) to import by sea any live animal of any kind to which the order is expressed to relate;
(b) to import any such animal by sea unless it is imported at a port or one of the ports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;
(c) to import any such animal by air;
(d) to import any such animal by air unless it is unloaded at an airport or one of the airports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;
(e) to import any such animal by land;
(f) to import any such animal by land unless it is brought across the boundary into Northern Ireland at a place or one of the places specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind.

(1B) Any prohibition or restriction in any order under this section shall not apply to an animal which the Secretary of State authorises to be imported otherwise than in accordance with the order and which is imported in accordance with that authorisation.
(1C) In subsection (1A) above—
airport" means an aerodrome for the time being designated as a customs airport under section 15(5) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952;
port" means any area for the time being appointed and named under section 13(1) of that Act as a port for the purposes of customs and excise.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 85.

Mr. Barnett: This amendment would redraft and expand on the wording of Clause 4(1), which empowers the Secretary of State by order to restrict ports of importation for live animals. The amendment makes specific provision not only for ports but also for airports and the land boundary in Northern Ireland, and clearly defines the terms "port" and "airport".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I want to speak to the question of orders as to restricted ports, which I understand from the clause can be made by Statutory Instruments, subject to negative resolution of this House. I also understand that by subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State may authorise variations even orally, let alone in any organised form. Many of the amendments are asking for information to be provided, and this is another request that information will be given.
I trust that the Department of the Environment will keep a full record of any such authorisations, because the Bill cannot be properly policed unless the public have access to details. I do not think that is unfair to importers, because they have the normal rules waived for them. These rules are there for the benefit of the species—that is what the Bill is all about—and not just for importers.
I should like to have an undertaking from the Minister that proper records will be kept and that these can be shown to inquiriers at reasonable times.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has raised a relevant point, but I assume that he would accept that there could be occasions when events subsequent to the start of the importation process could lead to its being much quicker for live animals particularly to be redirected to some other point of entry. An airport to which animals were originally expected to be taken could be closed as a result of fog or for some other reason, and it would be necessary for action to be taken quickly. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member would expect


this power to be retained. I should have thought that it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be able to vary the authorised points of entry at very short notice. I support the hon. Member in saying that where this is done in connection with an Appendix I species this information should be made known.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I undertake to write to both hon. Members on this question of records as to which ports of entry are possible and which are not for Appendix I animals and other species.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5

RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF CERTAIN LIVE ANIMALS AFTER IMPORTATION

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'any scientific authority or' and insert:
'one or more of the scientific'.

—This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert:
'do so, he may give a direction under this section in relation to the animal.
(1A) Where a direction has been given under this section in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, the animal shall, immediately after the relevant event,'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 17 and Government Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 inclusive.

Mr. Barnett: These amendments redraft part of Clause 5. The main change is that the term "relevant event" has been introduced and defined in order to make clear at what point the direction on the movement of a live animal takes effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:No. 17, in page 6, line 7, after 'at', insert 'the'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 10, at end insert:
'(1) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions, requirements and permissions given under subsection (1) above'.
The directions referred to are directions about where the animal may be moved and are relevant to, say, a safari park owner who wishes to put one of his animals in a circus which he also owns. I can think of two examples—Windsor Great Park and the park in the West Midlands near Bewdley—of well-known families involved with safari parks having connections with circuses. Incidentally, my son may be about to take a job with one of them.
If the Scientific Authority has licensed the animal's import on the ground that it should go to a safari park, it will issue a direction that it be kept there and nowhere else. A further example would be a safari park owner who wished to import young animals to run with older animals of the same species, thus making it appear that he is successfully breeding that species in captivity. I am assured that this has happened.
In substance, this amendment is the same as the amendment tabled by Lord Mowbray in another place. In Committee the noble Lady Baroness Stedman admitted that officials would be keeping a register anyway, so it is simply a question of making it accessible to the public. It is irrelevant to point out, as was said in the other place on Report, that
the information contained in the register will be simply the whereabouts of an animal, and this is something an inquirer presumably will normally already know."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1105.]
What the inquirer needs to know is whether it should be where it is, and this can be ascertained only from the register which, no doubt, the Department will keep.
The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said in the other place that the register would
contain information about importers' names and addresses".
I understand that that is not necessarily so if the current owner is not the importer.
Furthermore, I understand that at present the directions will be issued only for Appendix I species, and it has already been said, in the context of making licensing information available—and I welcome the Minister's statement on that matter of a few moments ago—that for Appendix I species they would perhaps be prepared to say whether the importer had a licence.
The noble Lady went on to say:
it would be an invasion of privacy to reveal them".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 5th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 513.]
In other words, it would be an invasion of privacy to give the names and addresses of importers.
This illustrates an unfortunate Government attitude—that rare animals which could become extinct entirely to the detriment of the human race are to be regarded as private property subject to the "rights" of licensed holders not to have their privacy invaded. In many cases the holders will be publicly displaying the animals.
The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said that bona fide inquiries would be told limited details and that in this case
it it might be less tempting to irresponsible inquirers to indulge in random snooping".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1106.]
That implies that people who own endangered animals must be protected against the law if they abuse the trust put in them by the licensing authority, and those who want to prevent species of animals from dying out are "irresponsible inquirers" indulging in "random snooping". I do not think that that is so, and I regret the use of those words. I contend that the availability of the information will prevent random snooping. No one will bother to snoop on a person whom he knows has legitimate possession of an animal.
Furthermore, it is important that the public should be able to monitor the activities of the Scientific Authority. Recently we saw pictures of the killer whale which had just been moved from Windsor Safari Park to America because it had outgrown its pool. I cannot vouch for what happened because I never saw it but, according to reports, the whale hardly had room to move about. Had it been imported under licence, and had the Scientific

Authority given a direction as to the pool in which it was to be kept, the public would have had a right to ask why the Scientific Authority had allowed it to be kept in too small a pool.
The amendment covers examples of the sort that I have given. I understand that the Department is not completely opposed to the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said. I hope that the Government have not set their minds against the amendment and that they will accept it.
There is no question of undue snooping. If it is necessary to enforce the law in other respects—for example, for income tax purposes, VAT purposes and in many other respects—and it must be proved that the law is being carried out, the requirements of the law are applied.
What the amendment proposes is the enforcement of the requirement to keep a register to ensure that the animals we are endeavouring to protect are protected and are not moved from place to place after they have been imported. I think that without stretching themselves unduly the Government could well accept the amendment. Considered in a practical manner, it is reasonable.

Mr. Sainsbury: I support what has been said. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment sympathetically, particularly because we are asking not for the publication of the information, either at a price or free, but merely that the register should be available. I understand that the information would have to be kept anyhow and would be kept. Therefore, it is simply a question of arranging that the information is available at reasonable times at, I should hope, minimum or nil cost to those with good reason to see it.

Mr. Guy Barnett: There is no issue of principle involved here. Hon. Members will have noted from the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on Amendment No. 8 that we are prepared to make available a register of licences issued for Appendix I species. My Department will be keep-a record of the directions to aid inspection and enforcement, but, I am advised,


it is unlikely that it will be in a form which can be easily made available to the public.
It is a comparatively easy task to produce once a year a list of licences issued; it is not so simple to produce an intelligible record of directions issued. The number of directions issued will in time reach a high cumulative total and, because of the numbers of deaths and transfers of animals which will be involved, it would not be easy to update such a register for publication.
The question of publishing information on the directions was discussed in another place. An undertaking was then given that, if a bona fide inquiry were made for good reason, my officials would be prepared to reveal whether a movement direction was in force on a particular animal. I am prepared to say also that this undertaking would cover the Secretary of State's requirement or permission for the removal of the animal to different premises under the direction if the inquirer knew or suspected that an animal had been moved. We appreciate that in practice most of the animals for which these directions are issued will be Appendix I species.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Burden: Are we to take it, then, that there is no disagreement here, that there should be this control, and the Government are taking that line not because they think that it would invade the privilege and rights of the person who owns the animal but merely on the question of administration? Is that what is meant? If so, I can only say that many things are said to be administratively difficult, but I always believe that administrative difficulties can be quite readily overcome if there is the intention to overcome them

Mr. Barnett: I take that point, but so often administrative difficulties can be overcome only by appointing a few more civil servants to make the information available—

Mr. Burden: Fewer.

Mr. Barnett: I wish that were always true. We have to look at this in the light of what I said about updating the information and making it available in a form understandable by organisations and individuals outside. It is extremely difficult

for us to accept the amendment as it stands, and I must ask the House to reject it.
On the other hand, we should want to look at the situation in future. I remain flexible on the question and confirm that we have no rooted objection. We are concerned merely about the cost and so on of doing it. I hope that the House will accept my undertaking that we shall look at the matter after the Bill comes into operation. If we can find ways by which the information can be made more readily available, we shall gladly do so, but I would rather not see the requirement included in the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Burden: If, for instance, inquiries are made by the Zoological Society, the British Veterinary Association or one of the reputable animal welfare organisations, may we take it that the information would be made available to organisations of that type?

Mr. Barnett: Certainly, in response to a bona fide inquiry from an organisation of that kind.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I am grateful also for his earlier statement, now repeated, that the information about the issuing of licences will be made available. That is a step forward.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) put the question in an interjection, and the Minister has confirmed that bona fide inquirers should normally be given the sort of information they are seeking. I accept that and trust that it will work. Therefore, if that is to happen I see no reason why the requirement should be written into the Bill now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (1) above and insert 'this section'.

No. 20, in page 6, line 13, leave out', knowing that a direction has been so given,—' and insert
'knows or ought to know that a direction has been so given and who—'.

No. 21, in page 6, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—
'(a) knowingly takes the animal, or knowingly permits it to be taken, at any time


after the relevant event to premises which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the taking the specified premises; or
(b) knowingly moves the animal, or knowingly permits it to be moved, at any time after the relevant event, the circumstances of the removal being that—

(i) it is made from premises which he knows or ought to know are at the time of the removal the specified premises, and
(ii) he knows or ought to know that the removal is made in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to in subsection (1A) above; or
(c) knowingly keeps the animal at any time after the relevant event at premises which are occupied by him and which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the keeping the specified premises.'.

No. 22, in page 6, line 34, at end, insert—
'(2A) In this section "relevant event" means, in relation to an animal, whichever of the following occurs later:—

(a) the completion by the animal of any period of detention (whether in quarantine or otherwise) in accordance with any provision made by or under any enactment, being detention connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given;
(b) the departure of the animal from any premises connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).

The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government New Clause 2—Provisions supplementary to section 5.

Mr. Barnett: The amendment and the new clause are primarily for drafting purposes. Together, they remove from Clause 5 and place in a separate clause those provisions relating to the requirements to be observed by the Secretary of State in making a direction under Clause 5, and also those relating to supplementary powers in connection with a direction.
There are only two small changes of substance. One is that the Secretary of State is now required to consult one or more of the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as when he first specifies premises.
The other change relates to powers of entry. The wording as drafted gave power for an authorised person to enter any premises, whether or not they were specified premises, to see whether they were suitable to be or to remain specified. The new clause provides that the power of entry should apply only to specified premises. On reflection, it was thought that an unlimited power of entry could be considered too intrusive, and, moreover, was unnecessary since, if anyone wanted premises to be specified, it would be in his own interests to allow entry.

Mr. Burden: Who will be the authorised persons in this case, and how many are there likely to be? Will they be Government inspectors, qualified veterinary officers or who?

Mr. Sainsbury: First, I welcome the provision that the Secretary of State will consult the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as before he grants it. Second, I greatly welcome the restriction on the power of entry. In normal circumstances, we should avoid granting an unlimited power. As the Minister said, there seems to be no need for it because, if somebody wants premises not already specified to be approved, he will welcome—indeed, he will invite—authorised persons to come to look at it. That is very much a change for the better.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am seeking advice on the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) about who will be the authorised persons. Perhaps I could let him know later.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 8, line 44, at end, add:
'(2) Any sums received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Buy Barnett.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9

CITATION, INTERPRETATION, COMMENC MENT, REPEAL, EXTENT, ETC.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 5, leave out' (1) and 5(1) to (6)' and insert
'(1B), 5 and (Provisions supplementary to section 5) and for the first reference to him in section 1(5A)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government New Clause 4—Interpretation.

Mr. Barnett: The amendment relates to the subsection which lists those references to the Secretary of State which in Northern Ireland are to be read as references to the Department of Agriculture.
The amendment makes two changes of substance. It removes the power for Northern Ireland to make separate orders restricting ports of entry under Clause 4(1) while leaving it with the power under Clause 4(1)(b) to authorise other ports in exceptional cases.
The other important change is consequent on Amendment No. 3. The power to make orders enabling charges to be made for licences will be confined to the Secretary of State, but in Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture will have the power to collect any such charges.
There are also minor drafting changes to bring the subsection into line with the redrafted and divided Clause 5.
I think that I have already covered New Clause 4. Both the amendment and the new clause are designed to bring the provisions concerned with the interpretation of the Bill into one separate interpretation clause. In addition, New Clause 4 includes a new subsection (1), which provides that man is not covered by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 9, line 7, leave out subsections (3) to (6).—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 1, after '1921', insert
, the words "whales or" in section 28(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952'.

The Minister will realise why we wish to insert this amendment into the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will be sympathetic.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the amendment. I have no brief to speak to it. However, I should like to know whether the Minister has seen on the Order Paper the motion on the protection of whales. It has no fewer than 251 signatures. It has been the most signed motion that has been through the House this Session. It shows the concern of many hon. Members and reflects concern throughout the country regarding whales, particularly sperm whales, which are not protected. If this amendment has any effect in that direction, it is worth having it included in the Bill.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I understand the anxiety felt by hon. Members on the subject of whales. Section 28 of the Customs and Excise Act provides that imported goods with certain exceptions must be entered with the Customs. One exception is
whales or fresh fish … of British taking brought by British ships".
The amendment would have the effect of requiring whales caught by British ships to be entered with the Customs. However, I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary. Apart from the fact that there are now no British whaling ships, the practice for many years has been for the catches of British fishing vessels and of whaling vessels, when they existed, not to be subject to the Customs control normally applicable to imported goods. For that reason, it was agreed between the Departments concerned that controls on the marine species covered by the Convention should not be operated by Customs, but that arrangements would be made, if necessary, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under its powers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
In view of what I have said, I ask the House to rest content with these arrangements and not to press the amendment.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I wanted to hear what would be said. That is why I moved the amendment formally.
Despite the regulations which have been agreed between certain nations about


the catching of whales, the whale population is now decreasing. This is a matter of serious concern.
I am aware that there would be difficulties about bringing this matter within the ambit of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will note the anxiety expressed by hon. Members and by many people throughout the world about the fact that the whale population is decreasing. I hope, too, that he will make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, keep a close eye on this matter, and take every possible step, in consultations with other Governments, to ensure that this species is given particular protection.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am personally deeply concerned about this issue. I certainly give the undertaking for which he asks.

Mr. Burden: In view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 3, at end, insert—
'(9A) In section 7 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs) subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2) are hereby repealed; and accordingly in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) for "such a licence as aforesaid" there shall be substituted "a licence granted under section ten of this Act" and the word "other" (wherever it occurs) is hereby repealed.'.
This amendment would repeal an obsolete provision in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 which would otherwise overlap with provisions in the Bill. The provision relates to imports of quail, lapwing and game birds.
If in future it should seem desirable on conservation grounds to re-introduce import control on these birds, it can be done by order under this Bill. If control seems desirable on other grounds, it can be done by order under Section 7(2)(b) of the Birds Act, which remains unaffected by this proposed repeal. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering the case of birds which travel badly.

Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Royal Society for

the Protection of Birds has been consulted and is happy about this proposed amendment?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I can give that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 5, leave out subsection (11).
This is a privilege amendement inserted by the Lords because the Bill started life in that House. I think that the Committee is aware of this procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 1

OFFENCE TO SELL ETC. THINGS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO SECTION 1 OR THEIR DERIVATIVES

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale, has in his possession for the purpose of sale, or displays to the public,—

(a) anything which has been imported contrary to section 1 above, or
(b) anything which is made wholly or partly from anything referred to in paragraph (a) above and which at the time of the alleged offence (though not necessarily at the time of importation) constitutes an item to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies,

shall be guilty of an offence; and in the following provisions of this section a "restricted article" means anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a restricted article if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

(a) that at the time when it first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and
(b) that, at the time the alleged offence was committed, he had no reason to believe restricted article, and

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(a) above, a person shall be taken to have made such enquiries as are there mentioned if he produces to the court a certificate which was furnished by the person from whom the accused obtained possession of the restricted article (the supplier), which was signed by the supplier or by a person authorised by him, and which states that—

(a) the supplier made enquiries at the time the restricted article came into his possession in order to ascertain whether it was a


(b) the supplier had no reason to believe at the time he relinquished possession of the restricted article to the accused that the article was at that time a restricted article.

(4) A person who furnishes for the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes for those purposes a certificate which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (4) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not not exceeding £400;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) In this section any reference to sale includes references to barter and exchange.

(7) For the purposes of this section a restricted article is displayed to the public if it is displayed to the public generally or any section of it, and (in either case) whether in return for money or otherwise.

(8) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 5

'(1) Before he specifies any premises for the purposes of section 5 above or revokes a direction given under that section, the Secretary of State shall consult one or more of the scientific authorities.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not specify any premises for those purposes unless they are such that in his opinion the animal in relation to which he proposes to give, or has given, a direction under section 5 above may suitably be kept there.

(3) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reason able time and (if required to do so) upon producing evidence that he is so authorised, enter any premises which are for the time being specified in relation to any animal for the purposes of section 5 above for one or both of the following purposes:—

(a) in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether the premises remain such that in his opinion the animal may suitably be kept there;
(b) in order to ascertain whether the animal is being kept on the premises.

(4) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting under subsection (3) above shall

be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding£400.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

ORDERS

(1) An order under any of the relevant provisions may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under the provision concerned.

(2) The power conferred by each of the relevant provisions to make an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) In this section "the relevant provisions" means sections 1(5A), 3 and 4 above.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 4

INTERPRETATION

'(1) For the purposes of this Act an individual of the family Hominidae (man) is not an animal.

(2) In this Act a reference to a dead animal of any particular kind includes a reference to the body of an animal of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or
(b) which, although not complete (whether because it has been eviscerated or because it has had the whole of its inside removed and has been stuffed, or for any other reason), is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles the complete body of an animal of the kind concerned.

(3) In this Act a reference to a dead plant of any particular kind includes a reference to a plant of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or
(b) which, although for any reason not complete, is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles a complete dead plant of the kind concerned.

(4) In this Act "enactment" includes an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of the Northern Ireland Assembly and an Order in Council having the same effect as such an enactment.

(5) Except in so far as the context otherwise requires, a reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference to it as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.'—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

ANIMALS THE IMPORTATION AND EX PORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 11, leave out line 19.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 30 to 54.

Mr. Barnett: All these amendments relate to Appendix III of the convention. We are required by the convention to control the species that are added by other countries to this appendix, and these amendments cover the additions that have been made since the Bill was first introduced. We therefore require some deletions from the excepted lists in Schedule 1 and some additions to the restricted list of plants in Schedule 2.
The deletion of Colomba guinea in Amendment No. 38 is consequent on an addition to Appendix HI of the convention, but the insertion of Columba livia in its place is merely to except a species which is commonly in trade. I remind the House that, because of the way Schedule 1 works, all the amendments which delete animals from the schedule have the effect of bringing them under control.

No. 38, in page 13, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:


'Columba livia
Domestic pigeon


Streptopelia orientalis
Rufous turtle dove


Streptopelia Bitorquata
Javanese turtle dove


Streptopelia decaocto
Collared dove


Streptopelia capicola
Ring-necked dove (otherwise known as Cape dove)


Streptopelia tranquebarica
Red turtle dove


Streptopelia chinensis
Spotted dove


Turtur chalcospilos
Green-spotted wood dove'

No. 39, in page 14, leave out line 9.

No. 41, in page 14, leave out line 20 and insert:


'Agapornis cana
Madagascan lovebird


Agapornis taranta
Black-winged lovebird


Agapornis roseicollis
Rosy-faced lovebird


Agapornis fischeri
Fischer's lovebird


Agapornis personata
Masked lovebird


Agapornis lilianae
Nyasa lovebird


Agapornis nigrigenis
Black-cheeked lovebird'.

No. 42, in page 14, leave out line 23.

No. 43, in page 15, line 17, leave out

Mr. Sainsbury: Again, I assume that the Minister can assure us that those concerned have been consulted about these changes.

Mr. Barnett: Yes, I can give that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 12, leave out line 25.

No. 31, in page 12, line 41, at end insert—

'Waterfowl

Any domestic form of Anser anser. Domestic goose.

Any domestic form of Anser cygnoides. Chinese goose.

Any domestic form of Cairina moschata. Muscovy duck.

Any domestic form of Anas platyrhynchos. Domestic duck'.

No. 32, in page 13, line 9, after 'jungle-fowl', insert 'and domestic fowl'.

No. 33, in page 13, line 11, after 'pheasant', insert
'(otherwise known as ring-necked pheasant)'.

No. 34, in page 13, line 15, leave out 'Amherst' and insert 'Lady Amherst's'.

No. 35, in page 13, line 21, at end insert—
'Any domestic form of Meleagris gallopavo Turkey'.

No. 36, in page 13, leave out line 24.

No. 37, in page 13, leave out line 29.

No. 40, in page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18.

'White-cheeked' and insert 'White-browed'.

No. 44, in page 16, leave out line 8.

No. 45, in page 16, leave out line 10.

No. 46, in page 17, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert:


'Sporopipes squamifrons
Scaly-crowned weaver'.

No. 47, in page 17, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert:


'Quelea cardinalis
Cardinal quelea


Euplectes anomalus
Bob-tailed wydah


Euplectes diadematus
Fire-fronted bishop


Euplectes gierowii
Black bishop


Euplectes nigroventris
Black-winged bishop


Euplectes aureus
Golden-backed bishop


Euplectes capensis
Yellow-rumped bishop


Euplectes axillaris
Fan-tailed wydah


Euplectes hartlaubi
Marsh bishop


Euplectes albonotatus
White-winged bishop


Euplectes progne
Long-tailed bishop


Euplectes jacksoni
Jackson's bisop'.

No. 48, in page 17, leave out line 30.

No. 49, in page 17, line 44, after 'Bibron's', insert 'clawless'.

No. 50, in page 20, line 7, column 2, insert 'Mangrove frog'.

No. 51, in page 20, line 30, column 2, insert 'Green toad'.

No. 52, in page 20, leave out line 35.

No. 53, in page 20, line 36, column 2, insert 'Giant tree frog'.

No. 54, in page 23, line 19, leave out 'explanation' and insert 'guidance'.—[Mr. Guy Burnett.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

PLANTS THE IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 24, line 3, at end insert:


'Gnetaceae
Gnetum montanum'.

No. 56, in page 24, line 11, at end insert:


'Magnoliaceae
Talauma hodgsonii'.

No. 57, in page 24, line 19, at end insert:


'Papaveraceae
Meconopsis regia'.

No. 58, in page 24, line 22, column 2, at end insert:
Podocarpus nerifolius',

No. 59, in page 24, line 33, at end insert:


'Tetracentraceae
Tetracentron'.

—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

ITEMS THE IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 60, in page 25, line 36, leave out
'any rug, coverlet, coat, jacket, cape or stole'.
and insert 'clothing or furnishings'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:

No. 89, in page 25, line 37, leave out
'(except where the furskin is trimming only)'.

No. 69, in page 26, line 42, leave out "coat or jacket' and insert 'clothing'.

No. 82, in page 27, line 43, at end add—

'INTERPRETATION

In this Schedule, the following definitions shall apply:
clothing" includes footwear and any personal accessory except a container;
container" means any personal portable receptacle;
furnishings" means household, office, vehicle and any other furnishings, and includes non-personal ornaments of any kind'.

Mr. Ross: The amendment seeks to provide a precedent for the scientific authorities in providing sufficiently comprehensive definitions for controlled goods. It has been deliberately restricted to cover the position of spotted cats.
I should like to start by giving the Committee some rather alarming figures about imports of skins from spotted cats, particularly from South America, which appear in the briefing document from


Friends of the Earth, to which organisation I pay tribute. It has played a very large role in providing information both to the noble Lords and to Members of this House about the background of the Bill. This has been recognised by the Government and by Members of both Houses.
From these figures we can appreciate just how great is the trade in the species to which I have referred. Apparently, licences issued between 1st January and 30th June 1976 for the export of some animals products were as follows: for ocelot, the South American spotted cat, no fewer than 11,826 skins; for tiger cat, or little spotted cat, 4,738 skins; for Wied's tiger cat, or the margay, 3,955 skins; for poor old Geoffrey's cat, also from South America, 4,046 skins.
One could go on and try to extend the amendment to try to cover reptiles, but I have not done so. However, even there the number of skins of water snakes is 2,000, and the figure for the Indian rat snake is some 26,000.
We are talking about very big numbers and, therefore, this is an amendment of some importance.
The Customs seems to want to keep the Bill to terms used in the Customs Tariff so that they can integrate their general revenue functions with their functions of controlling prohibited imports. However, I think that it would be agreed in all quarters that the Customs Tariff can be very vague. I do not wish to take up much time by quoting examples, but if one looks at Article 42.02 of the Customs Tariff one finds examples of the definition of "containers" which lead to confusion. One has only to look at the existing schedule to see the variation in terms, and the odd and anomalous distinctions between what is controlled and what is not. For example, leopard-skin coats are controlled, but leopard-skin boots, which have been on sale recently in Oxford Street, are not controlled.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am alarmed and astonished at the idea of leopard-skin boots being on sale, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that they were made of real leopard skin, and not imitation leopard skin?

Mr. Ross: I am assured that they were. I would certainly not wish to purchase any such thing for my wife. Indeed, she would divorce me if I did. However, I take this from the information that has been provided to me, which is fairly sound, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these were genuine leopard-skin boots.
So far only a few manufactured products appear in the schedule, but the scientific authority will no doubt be wanting soon to control certain manufactured products. It should bring uniformity to the schedule if the authority has available to it easily recognisable and quantifiable categories of product. It should make the job easier by reducing the bewildering variety of products which could be controlled, each under its individual name, and with the consequent risk of overlapping, not to mention gaps in controls, complications and accidental anomalies.
What is intended in the amendment is that rather than what has happened under the open general import licences in the past, the definitions should be fully debated and considered by biologists, politicians, traders, conservationists and lawyers, in order to obtain a precise, concise, intelligible and workable set of definitions for certain situations. If we can do that we should avoid the confusion in current law about the products which has never been defined by parliamentary counsel and which has grown up in an ad hoc fashion.
I may be accused of making the job of the Customs vastly more difficult than it is already. However, applying the definitions suggested would simplify Customs work. One has only to look at paragraph 9(4) of the schedule to see, in line 36, the words,
Any rug, coverlet, coat, jacket, cape or stole made wholly or partly of any furskin of a defined animal (except where the furskin is trimming only).
If that were reduced to "clothing" and "furskins", how much more simple it would be.
It would also make controls more comprehensive, which is the point of proposing these definitions. There is no sense in controlling tiger-skin bedspreads, which is done at present, I am told, but not tiger-skin curtains, which is not done


at present. Again, I do not fancy tiger-skin curtains. Heaven forbid! Nevertheless, I understand that this is one way in which people get round these controls. If one wants a tiger-skin bedspread, apparently what one does is to attach curtain hooks to the tiger-skin and the Customs have to let it through, and once in the country one takes off the curtain rings and put it on one's bed. This brings the law into contempt, and as the Customs have to enforce it at the ports in the arbitrary manner laid down in Schedule 3, they can do nothing about it and it will tend to bring the Customs into contempt. They could do nothing about it even if the hooks were publicly pulled off within sight of the Customs barrier.
Those are a couple of examples of the way that tiger-skins and leopard-skins may be used for bedspreads and boots. I am not suggesting that many people in Britain would want to have those items. Unfortunately, however, there are people in this world who do want them. All that I am trying to do is to simplify the wording so that these anomalies can be avoided and so that we can, perhaps, get some fairly concise definition and know exactly what we are dealing with. We are dealing with animals which have been vastly over-exploited. We know the situation with regard to tigers, but the figures that I read earlier about spotted cats should alarm us all into taking some action. I hope that my amendment will receive some consideration from the Minister.

Mr. Burden: I want the Minister to give very serious consideration to Amendment No. 89, standing in my name. It would have the effect of deleting the exceptions where the furskin is trimming only. There are very serious objections to the retention of this particular exception. The Minister must realise that furskin trimming can be of several sizes. It can be very small or it can be quite extensive.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this question. It is inevitable that if the skins of these threatened rare species are to be used as trimmings, the people who will so use them will want the mto be sufficiently large to be recognisable and the women wearing them to be proud of the fact that they

have an article trimmed with a very rare skin. If there is a sufficiency of trimmings of the skins of these animals, that could mean the use of a large number of them.
1.30 p.m.
If, on the other hand, it is said that the trimmings are small, I submit that the effect of such a trimming on the style and quality of the garment would be so insignificant that it would be unrecognisable except to someone with expert knowledge of skins.
It is also the fact that the skins are to be used not as fur garments, but as trimmings. I submit that it would be extremely difficult to control the size or to decide whether the skin was recognised as a trimming. The only difficulties would arise because of the enormous number of companies who manufacture coats and suits on which the skin would appear.
I am also convinced that the use of these fur trimmings for fashion purposes is completely unnecessary. If we are talking about trying to save endangered species and restricting the use to which their skins can be put in order to help to save the animals, the last thing we want to exclude from control is something that is to be used purely for fashion purposes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: I should like to have been able to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and, indeed, that moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but, commendable as the amendments are, I suggest that unless the Minister is able to assure us that these matters have been discussed with those concerned, and particularly with those in the trade who are involved, and that what is proposed is acceptable, it would be better if the Minister would take note of what has been said and consider the matter again.

Mr. Burden: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should take that line. For many years I was engaged in the clothing trade, and I am sure that if the Minister accepts the amendment, even though there may be some objections to it from members of the fur trade who may want to use these furs as trimmings, what is proposed will not involve them in any


great hardship. We are talking about endangered species. Very few of their skins will be allowed to come in, and if manufacturers were to rely on receiving these furs they would go bust anyhow.

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that, but the schedule gives rise to a licensing requirement and extends the complexity of the administration. Perhaps I should be reassured by what my hon. Friend said, because I was intending to suggest that if the Minister cannot assure us that he has already consulted the trade about these matters it would be better if he were to consider what has been said—and said powerfully on this group of amendments—and consider the matter again in another place.
There is the other aspect, and it is that, under Clause 3, the schedules can be varied by order of the Secretary of State. If we get the Bill on to the statute book, which I am sure we all want, and a loophole is discovered, it will be open to the Secretary of State, after the necessary consultations, to bring forward an order to vary the schedule.

Mr. Burden: I think that if we can we should deal with these matters now and not leave them to be dealt with at a later date. If this is a reasonable amendment, as I hope the Minister will accept it is, he should agree to incorporate it into the Bill and deal with the matter now.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that it is always better to deal with something straight away if that is possible, and experience shows that it is not always possible to ensure that orders are thoroughly discussed and ventilated, but if we are on new ground that has not been the subject of discussions with the trade, we are to some extent on dangerous ground. I agree that if we are dealing with endangered species, we do not want the animal killed when only a small tip of the tail is to be used as a trimming for fashion purposes. Equally, however, there are problems of identification. Presumably, ancient fur coats could be cut up and used as trimmings on modern garments. That could give rise to the problem of determining whether one was dealing with something that was legal and proper, or something that was not.
I should have liked to be able to support the amendments, but I think that this is a matter on which there should be full consultation.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that old fur coats could be cut up and used as trimmings. Stoles are often made from cutting up fur coats. If there were a problem about trimmings, there would be a problem also about stoles.

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I hesitate even to define what is a stole.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I propose to deal first with the amendment moved so persuasively by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and then to refer to the amendment so persuasively suggested by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
The convention requires us to control such parts and derivatives of the species on the appendices as are readily recognisable. Here lies perhaps the most intractable problem in the convention because identification can often be very difficult indeed. We have interpreted the term "readily recognisable" as meaning that the items in each paragraph of Schedule 3 can be recognised by most laymen as a group, and that the individual species within each paragraph can be identified by an expert. It is essential that any controls we introduce should be practical and enforceable.
We have managed to provide a fairly thorough coverage of raw parts. But so far our coverage of manufactured goods and derivatives has been less extensive. It is extremely difficult to identify the precise species in most manufactured goods, and it is far from easy to define the area of control in a manner which customs and traders will find workable. Our approach has been a gradual and pragmatic one. We have produced a short list of those products most commonly in trade which are big enough to make identification possible. We do not pretend that our present coverage is the last word on the subject. A power to change the schedules by order is provided, and we intend to use it as the convention changes and we gain experience.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is something of a compromise between the


approach that we have adopted and the opposite extreme suggested to us of controlling all products of named species. Although, if I may say so, it is an ingenious one, it still does not overcome the recognisability problem. It provides no exemption, for example, for very small pieces of skin which even an expert could not identify. Moreover, it does not provide a clear and unambiguous list of the products to be controlled.
In any case these amendments would extend our area of control appreciably and before we could take such a step detailed consultation with the trade would be necessary.
In the past we have always consulted with traders before extending the scope of our controls and we intend to continue such consultations. I am certainly prepared to review the controls on products after the convention to be held in Berne next week and to consult as necessary with a view to placing an order before the House some time next year if this seems advantageous. I hope that this undertaking will satisfy the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gillingham concerned with trimmings. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the trade in trimmings may be substantial and that their exemption may leave an undesirable loophole. I do not feel able to accept that argument. In the first place, as we have already said, small pieces of fur are very difficult for even an expert to identify.

Mr. Burden: With the greatest respect, if indeed they cannot be identified that is all the more reason for banning the importation of the entire skin.

Mr. Burden: With the greatest case but I am dealing with the point about trimmings which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am sure he will recognise that when we are making a protection we should make one that we can enforce.
In the second place—this is germane to the point which the hon. Gentleman made—trimmings are a by-product of the trade. We consider that it is more important at this stage to control the products from which the animal is exploited and in which the furskin forms a significant

part. But as I said earlier, we are prepared to change the schedules later as we gain experience. In the light of what I have said I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham will not press his amendment.

Mr. Burden: The Minister is in a satisfactory position because we cannot push any of these amendments to a Division, as he well knows. But that in no way takes from him the responsibility. He has shown a considerable measure of agreement with what has been said and with what we are attempting to achieve.
It is of considerable concern to me that this loophole does exist. Perhaps the Minister and his Department have paid a little too much attention to the approaches which have been made to them by the fur trade, because a moment's thought must convince the Minister that if these words are left out—and these trimmings were not allowed—the women of this country would not rise up in arms because they were denied the opportunity of expressing themselves through a design in fashion. Certainly the fur trade would not go bust. In any case it is a very small trade and the amendment would apply only to buyers of what will be expensive garments.
Although it is perfectly clear that the Minister will not accept my amendment, unless he changes his mind, he signified an undertaking. I hope he will endorse it in unequivocal terms, and ensure that this point will be given serious consideration at a later stage on pragmatic lines and not on fashion lines.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If there were one amendment that I would like to have pressed to a Division it is this one. The figures are so alarming that we have got to take action quickly, otherwise none of these animals will be left. We know that certain steps are now being taken to protect tigers, but it appears that in South America the reduction in the number of spotted cats is quite enormous. I sincerely hope that at the which meets next week further steps will be taken to protect these animals—even certain reptiles, such as crocodiles—which are now in danger. Things move very fast and we


could find ourselves in a situation in which they have gone too far.
As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) rightly said, one does not want to interrupt people's trading activities. They are people who have been in the business for a few years, but the fact is that trade will stop anyway because these animals will just not be around. I sincerely hope that something rather more will come out of the convention next week. I note the Minister's sympathetic undertaking to consider whether further legislation should be put before this House early next year. If we get to the Queen's Speech there will not be that much legislation in it—if it includes devolution—and I think there would be time to discuss a further restriction on these sort of imports. Obviously I cannot press the amendment today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 25, line 40, at end insert—
'Aonyx (clawless otters)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
Government Amendments Nos. 62 to 68 and Government Amendments Nos. 70 to 81.

Mr. Barnett: The effect of these amendments would be to add all species of otter to the animals defined in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3, thereby controlling otter furskins and certain of their products. The fur trade has been consulted and accepts the proposal.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Government, and in particular the Minister, for carrying out an undertaking they gave in the other place to include otters. They indicated that this might be possible and I am delighted that it has happened. I congratulate the trade on a sensible approach.
It is essential to protect otters in this country because they have almost disappeared from the South of England. I understand the reason why they are not given protection like badgers is that they

are still said to be plentiful in Scotland. I am not sure whether that is so, but certainly in many parts of England and Wales their numbers are declining and they are rarely seen. I hope that, having given protection to the imports of otter skins, we shall now protect our own native otter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 62, in page 25, line 41, at end insert—
'Lutra (common otters)'.

No. 63, in page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'Paraonyx (clawless otters)'.

No. 64, in page 26, line 2, at end insert—
'Amblonyx cinerea (oriental small-clawed otter)'.

No. 65, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—
'Enhydra lutris (sea otter)'.

No. 66, in page 26, line 23, at end insert—
'Lutrogale perspicillata (smooth-coated otter)'.

No. 67, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
'Pteronura brasiliensis (giant otter)'.

No. 68, in page 26, line 36, at end insert—
'9A. The skin and scales of any animal of the family Manidae (pangolins)'.

No. 70, in page 26, line 44, leave out 'sub-species Moschus moschiferus moschi-ferus' and insert 'species Moschus moschiferus'.

No. 71, in page 27, line 1, after 'The', insert
'whole or any part of any'.

No. 72, in page 27, line 5, leave out 'claws' and insert 'flippers'.

No. 73, in page 27, line 6, at end insert—
'15. The meat and cartilage, including callipee and callipash, of any animal of the family Cheloniidae (see turtles)'.

No. 74, in page 27, line 16, at end insert—
'Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl)'.

No. 75, in page 27, line 17, after 'colchicus ('insert
common pheasant, otherwise known as'.

No. 76, in page 27, leave out line 27.

No. 77, in page 27, line 33, after 'cristatus (',insert 'Indian'.

No. 78, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'paragraphs'.

No. 79, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
'18A. Any egg, whether whole or blown, of any bird other than—

(a) a bird of any of the following species, namely—

Alectoris chukar (chukar).
Alectoris rufa (red-legged partridge).
Coturnix japonica (Japanese quail).
Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl).
Perdix perdix (common partridge);

(b) a bird of any domestic form of any of the following species, namely—

Anas platyrhynchos (domestic duck)
Anser anser (domestic goose)
Anser cygnoides (Chinese goose)
Cairina moschata (Muscovy duck)
Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)
Numida meleagris (Guinea fowl).'

No. 80, in page 27, line 39, leave out 'the family Cyatheaceae' and insert
any of the families Cyatheaceae and Dicksoniaceae'.

No. 81, in page 27, line 41, leave out 'explanation' and insert 'guidance'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in line 5, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 7 and insert 'on 31st October 1976'.
This amendment would write into the Bill the date on which the convention comes into force in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

Title

Amendments made:

No. 84, in line 2, leave out 'trade in them' and insert
'to restrict certain transactions in respect of them or their derivatives'.

No. 85, in line 4, leave out 'ports' and insert 'places'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

1.51 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
To begin with I should like to express sympathy with hon. Members who may feel that the Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been unduly compressed. I myself have some regrets that we have not been able to debate some of the amendments more fully. The House will recollect that the delay before Second Reading was due to the failure of the motion to take Second Reading in Committee instead of on the Floor of the House. In the circumstances, I think my right hon. Friend the Lord President has done remarkably well to enable this very desirable Bill to complete its passage this Session.
We have had to look at a considerable number of Government amendments in Committee, but most of these resulted from undertakings given in another place and from tidying up of the drafting. There is little new material except that resulting from Appendix III of the Convention. The House may be reassured that all the Government's amendments have been the subject of long and careful consideration before today.
We have also considered very carefully the other amendments that were tabled. The House will be aware that none of them came as a surprise to us. Some were tabled, although perhaps in a different form, in another place. All have been the subject of prior discussion and I hope the hon. Members concerned will accept that I have gone as far as I can in trying to meet their wishes.
On Second Reading the question was raised as to what guidance is provided for Customs. Customs officers are generalists and cannot be expected to identify accurately all the wide range of species which this Bill subjects to control. They are, however, given broad descriptions of the types of animals, plants and goods to look out for. If they require detailed advice on any particular consignment, they can call on the services of a panel of experts employed by my Department who between them cover the range of knowledge required.
I am satisfied that we are now on firm ground both in the text of the Bill and in the schedules. We shall keep the


schedules under review and continue to consult closely with trade and conservation interests. It may well be that the first order to amend the schedules will have to be made fairly soon, following the conference of the party States in Berne next week. But our delegation to the Berne conference will be greatly fortified by the knowledge that this Bill has now passed through both Houses of Parliament.
It remains for me to thank hon. Members for their close interest and constructive approach this afternoon, without which we could not have concluded our business so efficiently.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: We on this side of the House are delighted that the Bill has reached this stage, especially considering that this is the eleventh hour of the Session—although perhaps, in view of recent developments, we are now back to half-past the tenth hour.
We can claim some credit for the fact that we have an opportunity to speak on Third Reading because of our motion on the Order Paper. Before completing our proceedings, we should pay tribute to the work done in another place. In view of what is often said by those who doubt the value of proceedings there, we should be grateful for the skill and expertise which was brought to beat there on this Bill.
We in this House can also claim credit for good behaviour. For example, we passed Amendment No. 41 without the slightest discussion although it dealt with black-winged love birds and rosy-faced love birds, which in other circumstances could have led to an interesting and even lengthy debate.
The Minister mentioned the Berne conference. I am delighted that he feels that the United Kingdom contribution will be strengthened by the Bill. I am sure that he will agree that this is an area in which only international action will be effective. However willing and effective we are in operating these conventions, all the countries concerned will have to work to achieve the objectives we all seek.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will keep up con. sultations with those for whom we have a particular responsibility, particularly

Hong Kong. His hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me about the situation there, which came up on Second Reading. I understand that, at Hong Kong's request, reservations were entered on its behalf on the Asian elephant and on reptiles to cover trade in ivory and reptile skins. As we have said, those are important areas. I hope that discussions will continue with the authorities in Hong Kong and anywhere else that these matters arise to try to ensure that there are no unnecessary and avoidable loopholes.
I join the Minister in thanking those who have taken part in the debate for speeding the progress. I pay a final tribute to the voluntary bodies which have prodded us, briefed us and encouraged us.

1.58 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I also thank the Minister and his Department for their helpful attitude towards the Bill. I am delighted that it has reached its Third Reading and will now go on to the statute book. It is another worthy step forward in conservation, and probably the most important measure on this subject to come before the House.
As I said on Second Reading, this is one of our happier debates. Hon. Members have often drawn attention to the amount of legislation which is not relevant to our current economic situation, but this Bill is the result of worldwide activity and a wonderful advance in conservation.
I do not know who will represent this country at the conference next week, but we know that Ministers regularly go to and from the EEC. If we could persuade some of our EEC colleagues—particularly the Italians—to stop shooting migratory birds, that would also be a great step forward. If they do not stop soon, there will not be many left anyway.
I pay my tribute to the conservation societies. Sometimes people feel that there are too many amenity groups in this country taking up attitudes and prodding us and it is sometimes thought that they are being too selfish. The Friends of the Earth, the RSPB, the RSPCA and the World Wildlife Fund have played a most constructive role. The relationships of these societies with the Department of the Environment are on a good basis.
I also pay tribute to the work done in another place, especially by Lord Wynne-Jones, whose Private Bill this first was and who took the trouble to come to a meeting about it in the House of Commons. I congratulate him.
I also congratulate the Minister on his helpful attitude today. I am sorry that the Bill has had to be taken on Friday with so few hon. Members present. We know that there is a lot of pressure on Members of Parliament and that if they have a free Friday they will take it. Members of the public who are intensely interested in the subject no doubt will be disappointed that so few Members of Parliament have been present, but I hope they will not take that as showing that Members have no interest in this subject. There is great interest in it in the House.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will soon be in effective operation.

2.1 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I greatly welcome the Bill. Since I have been in the House there has been growing concern about the welfare of animals. We have had enormous support from the other place in our efforts to improve animal welfare. On at least two occasions Bills were started in the other place because there was difficulty in starting them in this Chamber. The Ponies Bill was one and the Badgers Bill was another. Those Bills eventually reached the statute book having been started in the other place, just as this Bill was started in the other place, The House should pay tribute to those of their Lordships who are so interested in animal welfare. Lord Silkin, the father of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, introduced the Ponies Bill and went to great lengths to ensure that it reached the statute book.
The Bill is necessary because there is no doubt that many species are in grave danger of extinction. We are trying to ensure that there is no decline in the number of the animals who are threatened with extinction. Between 1600 and 1974, 130 full species of birds and mammals became extinct. That was a great loss to civilisation.
I was interested to see a recent television programme about the orang utang. The ape is seriously threatened with extinction because of threats to its natural habitat. There is no mention of apes in

the schedule, but I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that when he is at the convention in Berne something is done to protect the orang utang. The orang utang is the most tractable and friendly of all the apes. There are so few tractable and friendly creatures in the world that we should do all we can to ensure that they do not become extinct.
In the Second Reading debate I pointed out the difficulty that Customs officials would have in recognising species. I suggested that an illustrative chart might be issued for that purpose. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man and the ingenuity of printers and others to produce a coloured chart. I know that a panel of experts is available when there are any doubts about a species, but it would be helpful to Customs officials to have immediate guidance in the form of an illustration.
I see from the schedule that there is a species of bird called babblers. They have nothing to do with the Chamber. The species includes the white-throated laughing thrush and the white-crested laughing thrush. I feel sure that there will be many difficulties arising in the recognition of these birds.
The Minister promised before the end of the debate to tell us who would have authority to enter premises which were to house imported species. He has not done so, but I hope that he will intervene to give us this information.
The Bill is a step forward. If other species become endangered I hope that they will be included in the schedule and in the legislation applying in other countries. I pay tribute to the Minister for the kindly and sympathetic way in which he has handled the debate. I feel sure that he will show the same sympathy and kindliness in seeing that the Bill works and that it is added to as and when necessary.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to answer two questions he put. I apologise to him for not having referred earlier to the question he raised about the authority in Clause 5. The authority is a panel of inspectors appointed by the Department of the Environment, and it will include some veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Burden: I assume that the premises to which these animals are going will be inspected before they arrive and from time to time thereafter to ensure that the necessary standards are maintained?

Mr. Barnett: That is my understanding. I accept the hon. Gentleman's valuable suggestion that Customs officials should be given descriptions of the species to watch for. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would make their work more effective. That would be our desire. as it is his, and I shall consider the suggestion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forth-with pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

CIVIL AVIATION

That the British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be approved.

That the British Airways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th October be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &amp;c, Sir John Eden be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — RENT ACTS (RURAL HOUSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

2.10 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to draw to the attention of the House this afternoon a matter of which I have given notice in the subject of my Adjournment and which I regard as a considerable wastage of homes due to the operation of current Rent Act legislation.
The background to the view I wish to present to the House relates not so much to homes and houses in built-up areas—cities, towns or suburbs thereof—though that is a problem, as to the large number of houses which are not used or which are under-used in country and rural areas.
I speak not just of my constituency but of a problem to be found wherever one goes in the countryside. As I said, I shall not dwell on the suburban problems, which are to some extent a separate subject.
All through Leicestershire and parts of the East Midlands one can go to small villages and many remote hamlets, perhaps composed of only a few houses, and see houses empty and unoccupied. When one asks why, at a time when all local authorities have long waiting lists for accommodation, houses which are structurally sound and externally most attractive are vacant and unoccupied, and in many instances have been so for some years, the owners of the properties or those responsible for handling their letting give the same answer, namely, that the landlord or the owner just cannot afford under existing legislation to place the property on the market for rent.
There are many agricultural houses which are empty and standing idle in the countryside. The agricultural work force has declined to about one-third of what it was after the war. As a result, a large number of farm workers' houses which were formerly occupied by agricultural workers are no longer


needed for that purpose. Farm mechanisation has proceeded apace, with the result that farmers have been able to reduce the number of their work people, and in many cases a number of houses have become vacant.
The reason farmers are reluctant to place their houses on the market for letting is that, under existing legislation, it would be impossible to regain possession after a given period. There is a remarkable change in the agricultural scene, with many houses becoming empty due to farm mechanisation. Most farmers are cautious and do not accept that there will necessarily continue to be a decline in the number of their work force, as has happened since the war. Other factors may enter into the calculation to make it necessary for them to have one or two houses on the farm available for farm workers should economic circumstances change.
Alternatively, the time may well come when a farmer feels—"I shall wish to retire from active farming. This cottage, which I own and which was occupied by a farm worker, has not been occupied for the past five years. I am now of retirement age. I want my son to take over." That thought is very likely to enter his mind under the new legislation. He may well think to himself "It will be an ideal house in which my wife and I can see out our declining years whilst another member of the family takes over the farm, under the new legislation, and moves into the main farm house."
Thousands of cottages suitable for such purposes remain empty simply because of the impossibility of the farmer gaining possession after a fixed period. I could take the Minister to hundreds of such cottages in my constituency and in the surrounding district. That is the reason the farmers give for the cottages standing empty.
There are other types of property which one sees standing empty in rural communities. Quite a large house is, perhaps, occupied by an elderly lady who thinks that the time will come five or 10 years hence when she will not be able to cope alone; she may wish to have a relative living in the house with her. The remainder of such a large house, which is far too large for the one occupant, or

the two occupants if they are a married couple, is inadequately used.
I have spoken to people who live in such larger houses and I know that they would be happy to contemplate providing a separate flatlet or similar occommodation if only they could be satisfied that in, say, five or 10 years they would be able to regain possession, perhaps for a relative whom they might wish to live with them when they go into some form of aged decline. The accommodation is there now and the possibilities for conversion exist. However, the owners will not contemplate making flatlets or other accommodation available for other tenants for a short fixed period, because of existing legislation.
This problem affects most rural areas. I have given the examples of farm workers' houses and under-occupied larger houses. There is an associated problem. I believe that an immense pool of additional accommodation could be made available to the nation in some country areas if the numerous outbuildings which are to be seen in villages and on farms adjacent to villages—outbuildings which were formerly used for other purposes, many of them beautifully built about 200 years ago and structurally externally sound—could be converted, with the expenditure of a certain amount of money, into flatlet or house accommodation.
The owners of these properties say that, because of existing legislation, they would prefer to try to maintain the external appearance of the building as best they can and not let a family come in at a fixed rent to convert the building into accommodation for themselves, thus turning the building into a unit of accommodation. This is because the owners know that, whatever form of agreement is entered into, should they wish to sell their property or for some other reason regain possession after a fixed period, they will be unable to do so.
I know a farmer quite well who has on his farm two beautiful 18th century houses which were occupied by farm workers until just after the 1939–45 war. He, like many other farmers, has modernised and mechanised and the cottages are no longer needed for farm workers. They are externally painted and slates are replaced if necessary. Internally, when


modernised and fitted with all the modern conveniences, two charming and attractive properties would be made available. But because these two cottages are in the heart of the farm and because of the risk of letting to an unsatisfactory tenant whose children cause a nuisance on the farm, the farmer could not contemplate the idea of letting the cottages without being able to gain possession after a fixed period of three or five years.
I was prompted to raise the matter by a letter which I recently received from a constituent. She has moved into the city of Leicester as a manageress of a bookshop and is a single lady of a respectable age and position. She is anxious to settle outside the city in the country and is prepared to travel into Leicester every day. She has searched all round the county within a radius of 15 miles of the city and she illustrates to me in her lucid letter the difficulties that I have described to the House.
She says that she has approached the owners of numerous properties that are suitable for conversion into flats. My constituent has met with refusal because of the reasons that I have given. She has approached the owners of farm cottages which have been empty for many years, but again she has been turned down, because the owners do not know what their plans may be for the future and fear that they might want to gain possession at a later date but be unable to do so.
Many of the people who live in large houses in and around rural villages are in straitened circumstances. They are often retired people living on an eroded income and they would be glad of the extra income to be earned by making part of their house available to a tenant. I have been told that if such people were able to gain possession after a fixed period, they would be happy to make a flatlet available, or to let a wing of their house to a couple.
I raise the matter because of the letters which I have described and because I know from my own experience that local authorities in Leicestershire, as in the rest of the country, have long waiting lists for that type of accommodation. Because of the obstinate attitude in current rent legislation, a large pool of most

attractive potential accommodation is going into decay and ruin. Unless the Government take steps to enable a landlord to take possession after a fixed period, I can see no prospect of this type of accommodation being put to the national use as it should be.

2.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his success in the ballot and I am glad to be able to be here to reply. The general theme of his speech today is of course not new. Nevertheless, in spite of the considerable airing which the subject has been given over the last two years and the continuing efforts which the Department has made to explain what the legislation on rented housing actually says, I welcome this further opportunity to put the record straight.
The hon. Member's objection to the Rent Acts is—if I may quote from the letter he wrote last week to my right hon. Friend the Minister—that they make
it almost impossible for a landlord to obtain possession of his property should he require to do so
with the result that useful housing is standing empty and in due course falling into ruin. He mentioned two categories of landlords in particular—farmers who own tied cottages which they no longer need for farm workers and older people who live alone in larger houses and who might be willing to let out spare rooms or flats. As I shall explain, the circumstances in which a landlord is allowed to recover possession from his tenant are considerably wider than is often imagined, and there are special provisions for the two categories of landlords that the hon. Member mentioned.
But I unhesitatingly plead guilty to the accusation that the broad policy underlying the Acts is that a landlord who is in the business of letting is not entitled to recover possession merely because it is convenient or profitable for him to do so. The Government believe that a tenant should be able to look on his home as a home and not have to live in fear of eviction or arbitrary rent increases. If one may judge by the actions of the Opposition when they were in office, they have a certain amount of sympathy for


this general principle. It was not a Labour Government who introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which gave security of tenure to long leaseholders whose leases were falling in. Nor was it a Labour Government who introduced the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, which extended Rent Act protection almost to the top of the rateable value scale. I wish that those who criticise the Rent Act 1965 and the Rent Act 1974 would remember these other measures. But we accept that there are some exceptions that should be allowed to the general rule.
First and foremost, we recognise that a resident landlord—typically an owner-occupier who lets out a spare room or basement flat—should be able to recover possession from his tenant. Before our 1974 Act, the resident landlord could recover possession only if the letting was furnished. A resident landlord can now let without having to worry whether the value of the furniture is a substantial part of the rent. But for lettings commencing after the Act it does not matter whether they are furnished or unfurnished.
A resident landlord cannot of course just throw his tenant out. The tenant is entitled to go to the rent tribunal to get his notice to quit extended to give him time to find somewhere else to go. But once the extension has expired, he has got to leave. Rent tribunals have had this power for nearly 30 years. If the tenant does not pay the rent, or otherwise misbehaves while his notice is running out, his right to remain can be shortened.
It does not seem to be widely known that the Rent Act 1974 toughened up the provisions on this. The Act actually strengthened the rights of resident landlords against unsatisfactory tenants. It is fair that this should be acknowledged.
In addition to the Department's general literature on the legislation about private renting, we have prepared a special leaflet as a guide for resident landlords. It is called "Rooms to Let: some facts you should know if you let part of the house you live in". I should be glad to arrange for a supply to be sent to the hon. Member for him to pass on to any of his constituents who are interested.
I turn now to what the Rent Acts say about owners of houses, cottages, or flats who are not using them now but who may wish to use them again at some time in the future. The Acts contain special provisions for several categories of such owners. They can let the properties concerned and are entitled to recover possession when they need them again. Farmers who own surplus tied cottages make up one of these categories.
A second category covers owner-occupiers who are temporarily away, for example, working abroad or in other parts of the country. A third provides for people who buy homes to move into when they retire. Provided that the tenants are given due warning at the time the tenancies are granted, the owners have a right to recover possession when the properties are needed for their use.
The Department has also produced a leaflet called "Letting your own house?", which explains how owner-occupiers who wish to let their own home, or their retirement home, can be certain of recovering possession. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member have a supply of these as well.
It has been suggested to the Government that there are further categories of owners who ought to be given this special treatment and be entitled to recover possession when they need to use their property again. We are going to look at these suggestions in the review of the Rent Acts, about which I shall have more to say in a few minutes. In principle, we see no reason why new "cases"—to use the jargon of the Acts—should not be introduced for appropriate types of property.
But let me add one word of warning: we have no intention of relaxing the Acts so that owners can let temporarily until the time is ripe for a profitable sale with vacant possession. That would be going against the whole principle of Rent Act protection.
I do not want to go into detail about all the other grounds for possession laid down in the Rent Acts. Apart from the special case of resident landlords, there are 18 grounds in all. But I wish to make one thing clear: the Acts limit the rent which the tenant can be required to pay. But he must pay the rent up to this limit. A tenant who falls into arrears with the


recoverable rent risks losing his security of tenure. He must go if the county court thinks it reasonable that he should. Equally, he is at risk if he breaks the terms of his tenancy, or causes nuisance to the neighbours, or damages the dwelling or the furniture.
So if a tenant abuses his protection, the landlord is entitled to seek possession. The figures we have from the county courts show that over the 18 months ending in June this year some 24,000 applications by private landlords for orders for possession against their tenants were decided by the courts. Ninety-six per cent. were successful. I would not, however, wish to suggest that a county court action is the normal end of a tenancy. In only a small proportion of cases are legal proceedings necessary, perhaps only one in 15.
Having dealt with the rights which the Acts give to landlords to recover possession I turn now to the second main issue which the hon. Member has raised. This is the extent to which the Rent Acts can be blamed for houses and flats standing empty.
I recognise that the Acts cannot be said to be an incentive to letting. They were not and are not meant to be. But it is too easy to put all the blame on the legislation. One way or another, Rent Acts have been with us for a good many years now. But the census in 1911—which was before any one but a few Utopians on the Left had ever suggested rent control—recorded that 5·6 per cent. of dwellings were vacant. This is a higher percentage than in any of the five censuses since the introduction of rent control. I would not wish to make too much of a rather elderly statistic, but evidently even in the days of laissez-faire some owners were reluctant to let. No doubt there were complex factors behind the statistics then, but so there are now.
More recently, we have seen what landlords made of the opportunity to let free from restrictions. Between 1957 and 1964, many existing lettings passed out of control and all new lettings were free from restrictions. From 1964 until 1974, furnished lettings were subject only to the limited security of tenure which the rent tribunals could grant. Ever since the last war the total number of rented properties

has been declining. The decline was particularly rapid in the late 1950s. Although the number of furnished lettings appears to have grown during the 1960s, it is clear that many of the properties concerned had previously been let unfurnished. In the 1970s, it became apparent that the number of evictions from furnished accommodation was increasing. It was also clear that such accommodation was often being left empty, doubtless with a view to conversion and profitable sale.
It is often alleged that the Rent Act 1974—or, for that matter, the Counter-Inflation Act 1973—has dried up the supply of rented accommodation. It might be fairer to say that these Acts were introduced because the supply of rented accommodation of the particular types they dealt with was rapidly drying up. Certainly by giving existing tenants security the Acts have prevented an over-rapid contraction in the private rented sector.
It is easy to say, and it is very commonly said, that there are thousands of empty houses which could and would be let if only the Rent Act restrictions on recovery of possession were relaxed. But when one looks more closely, the position always turns out to be more complicated than that. For instance, a great many of the people who complain to the Department that they cannot let are clearly covered by one or other of the existing exemptions.
I do not blame them for making this mistake. We recognise that the complexity of the legislation is to some an obstacle to letting in itself. We shall be trying to simplify it in the present review of the Rent Acts. Equally, we know that many houses are empty because they are unfit or in disrepair, or awaiting conversion or improvement. I might mention by way of example that 40 per cent. of the vacant dwellings in the sample for the last National House Condition Survey were unfit.
When one deducts from gross totals of empty dwellings those that are empty for reasons other than the Rent Acts, and those for which special provision is made in the existing legislation, the likely effects of any general relaxation of security of tenure can be seen in a more realistic


perspective. It may be that a few houses would be brought into use. More probably, quite a lot of houses which would otherwise be let on protected tenancies would be let unprotected. It is clear that many houses would be taken out of the rented sector altogether, as happened after 1957. The Government have often said—and I say it again today—that this should not be allowed to happen.
I have already indicated that we do not regard the Rent Acts as perfect. They are much too complicated and they can work harshly in particular cases. Some provisions have not fulfilled the intentions of those who introduced them. That is why we have undertaken to carry out a review of the Rent Acts, and preliminary work on this review is under way within the Department. We shall very shortly be issuing a consultation paper to invite the views and comments of interested organisations and individuals. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman. We are prepared to consider new ideas or reconsider

proposals that have previously been rejected.
As I have already said, we shall be looking at the categories of landlords who are entitled to recover possession when they want to use their properties again themselves. We shall be considering both the principles and the practical procedures for rent fixing. We shall be looking at the relationship between rents and the costs of repairs and improvements. But I can hold out no hope to the hon. Member that we shall go back on the general principle of security of tenure for the tenant in his home.
For so long as large numbers of people have to live in privately rented accommodation, this principle is a necessary part of any housing policy. To judge by actions, and not by words, this view has now come to be accepted on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Three o'clock.